Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Gulf (Ecology)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to display the same effort as they injected into military combat in fighting oil slicks in the Gulf, burning oil fires, and as soon as possible cholera, hepatitis, typhoid and other diseases arising from open sewers and related destruction in Kuwait, Baghdad and other cities; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to send a task force of environmental experts to the Middle East.
Were proof needed of the proposition that "Modern war creates more problems than is solves", the events in the Gulf from 15 January to 15 March 1991 would provide ample evidence. We have opened a Pandora's box without any clear idea of solutions. Yet, however we sleep-walked into war and however that war was conducted, particularly after it was clear that the Iraqi forces in Kuwait had become a rabble of looters on their way north, the necessary parliamentary inquest is more appropriate to a two or three-day mid-week debate than to a private Member's motion on a Friday. [Interruption.] Last night in the debate on the Easter Adjournment, I spoke about the Basra bombing. I do not propose to regurgitate what was said then, but I hope that there will at some time be answers to the serious questions that were raised.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory, to the point of being a cause for shame on us, that the opportunity for the first debate since 21 January—excluding the truncated debate initiated by the Scottish National party in late February—as opposed to ministerial statement, should have had to be as a result of my extraordinary luck in the ballot.
The reality of the human and ecological catastrophe in, let us call it, Mesopotamia is apparent for all who have eyes to watch television. Let me therefore deal with the motion, which concentrates on three problems, in perhaps ascending order of important. The first problem is that of the oil slicks. What is their latest known position? What is their status? What is the forecast about their possible dissipation, given the Nowruz experience during the Iran-Iraq war? What assessment has the Natural Environment Research Council, acting for the Department of the Environment, now made of the biological effects of oil spillage in the Gulf, particularly of the likely effects of oil on the coral ecosystem?
If I ask in particular, as I did on 7 February, about the coral islands of Qarah, Umm Al Maradim and Kubbar, it is because Dr. Nigel Downing—about whose work I contacted the Department of the Environment in late January and whose phone number I gave to the Prime Minister's office nine days ago—told me, speaking from his eight years' experience working for the Kuwait science institute, that they are crucial for the protection of fish

larvae and the replenishment of fish throughout the northern Gulf. The islands support the lesser-crested tern, ospreys and many other birds.
I am sure that all hon. Members present understand that we are about to embark on the major fish breeding season, that fish are starting to spawn and that the perturbations caused by oil slicks could break the food chain, perhaps causing famine in fish-dependent communities in the Gulf states and Iran. There is a major concern: what is being done to protect the mud-flats, which affect so much of the primary productivity of the Gulf and the plankton? If the desalination plants constitute an understandable priority, will protective booms for the mud-flats be considered? We must also consider the mangroves and the salt marshes. I understand that in some salt marshes the oil is 2 m thick.
It was extremely courteous of the Minister to send me the Conservative central office brief. The key points on the first page include the following information:
The Government has ordered 3 oil recovery skimmers worth £300,000 which will be sent to Bahrain.
90 tonnes of anti-pollution equipment—mostly booms—from industry stocks held in Britain were flown out to the Gulf on the 28th, 29th and 30th January.
Is there any shortage of equipment? Mr. David Olsen, the technical adviser on pollution to the Saudi Government, suggests that there is. I refer to my question on 19 February, when I asked:
Why should Mr. David Olsen, the consultant adviser on the environment to the Saudi Government, complain about a shortage of equipment?
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
I cannot answer for Mr. David Olsen. However, we have done our bit by sending about 90 tonnes of equipment which has been held here by the Department of Transport to help clean up the problems in the area."—[Official Report, 19 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 134.]
That is nothing like the scale of the operation that is clearly needed. Can the Minister persuade the House that the mechanism for getting scientists and experts out to the Gulf to examine the database has been co-ordinated by the United States, Germany, Italy, France, Japan and others who have a contribution to make? What financial support has been given to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and to the International Council for Bird Preservation? I understand that the Saudis have asked for the team to monitor the spring migration and the numbers of breeding sea birds.
I refer again to the brief from Conservative central office from Rachel Whetstone. It says:
The Government has supported the RSPCA team which is in the Gulf training volunteers to clean oil drenched birds.
The brief continues:
Despite international efforts, some 10,000 to 20,000 off shore birds, particularly socotra cormorants and grebes, are thought to have died as a result of oil drenching. In the last week, a number of early migratory birds, for example mallards, have been found covered in oil. These numbers will undoubtedly rise as the migrating season advances. In addition, the livelihood of local communities dependent on the sea has come under threat.
Rachel Whetstone's figures are grossly underestimated.
I should like to refer to the problems of the humped-back dolphin and dugongs, the sea-cow of the Gulf, green turtles and hawksbill turtles, socotra cormorants and a host of other species which are once again the victims of the inconceivable barbarity of the human brain.
I put on record a letter from the Bahraini ambassador, who writes:


I believe that the serious ecological disasters of the Gulf war need an expert international effort and action to combat the devastating immediate and long term ecological consequences not only in the Gulf region but worldwide. The unprecedented magnitude of the oil slick and burning oil wells will, no doubt, have dangerous consequences on the global environment. Therefore, I whole heartedly support your timely initiative to raise this question with a view to calling on Her Majesty's Government to send a task force of environmental experts to be despatched to the Gulf region to help extinguish the hundreds of fires at oil wells and preserve the human environment in general, and the marine environment in particular.
That was the view of the Bahraini Government.
What recommendations on wildlife have Ministers received from Roy Dennis of the RSPB and from Burr Heneman, the director of the United States section of the International Council for Bird Preservation? There are a number of comparatively small decisions and actions that could save species. For example, the rare bridled tern which breeds at the height of summer needs vegetation or shade to keep cool. I am told that a little provision could be made to create substitutes for destroyed vegetation in the traditional breeding ground.
My experience is that there are officers and other ranks in the services who know and care a great deal about wildlife. At least those who are known to have an interest might be approached to implement the type of recommendation that Roy Dennis and Burr Heneman will almost certainly make. As with every other question, I have given notice of the issue to relevant Ministers.
I refer to a matter that I raised as an example yesterday on the Scottish Natural Heritage Bill. It concerns the red-necked phalarope which nests in Shetland—there are about 30 pairs—and winters in the Indian ocean. It comes to us to breed, but in a few weeks it will be passing through the Gulf. Perhaps none of them will get through if they land in the oil slicks. That is a concrete example that concerns those of us who wish to find an answer.
In their report Roy Dennis and Burr Heneman say that to understand how migrant waders use the coast, detailed counts will be carried out in April and May. Data will be collected on species, numbers and percentages oiled at a selection of sites representing oiled and unoiled areas. Four teams of two ornothologists will undertake field work in four main areas. The daily monitoring will include the mapping of bird distribution through tidal cycles in April and May as well as collecting data on species, numbers and ages and state of migration. If possible, an attempt will be made to catch and ring waders as well as to collect biometric data. The main questions to be dealt with are how many waders use the coast on their spring migration, do different flocks of waders choose particular bays to feed in before making their long flights or do they trickle up the coast, and what percentage of birds get oiled? I have put the Department in touch with Michael Rands, and I hope that some reference will be made to these problems.
Before moving to the next part of the motion which is in ascending order of importance, I must say that I do not wish to give the impression that birds are the most important issue with which we must deal, but that is the way the motion is structured.
Before moving on to the next part of the motion on oil fires, I have one further question and it contains an element of recrimination. Why was little or no thought

given to deliberate oil spills by Iraq as an instrument of war? In a 55-minute speech—I shall be briefer today as many colleagues wish to speak—in column 403 of the Official Report of 19 December 1990, I warned of oil spills. It took no great prescience to do so on my part as Saddam Hussein was making precisely those threats. May I ask why, before the war was started—it is not simply a matter of hindsight—booms and other equipment were not in position or at least available?
I refer the House to an answer given by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 7 February 1991 to my question about the islands in column 221 of the Official Report. I challenge whether the scale of the problem was sufficiently understood. In an answer on 11 March 1991, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
In my Department, which has had the lead in environmental aspects of the Gulf conflict, around 20 civil servants have been involved to some degree in responding to these issues, including requests for assistance from the Gulf states. For about 5 staff, this has been a major part of their work. In other Departments closely involved the position is similar."—[Official Report, 11 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 369.]
Does that represent the scale needed to tackle the greatest ecological disaster of our time? Criticism about the oil spillages is as nothing to the anger that some of us feel about the oil wells. We have continued to nag at every parliamentary opportunity—and every other opportunity—on
flames such as Mother Earth has never witnessed.
We nagged during Prime Minister's questions on 13 November and on 11 December. At the scientists conference we were dismissed and told that we were exaggerating and being alarmist and we were rubbished.
I am especially distressed at the Secretary of State for Energy's response to figures given by the King of Jordan and, subsequently, to the warnings of photo-chemical smog given most prominently by Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck institute. I wish to put on record part of a letter of 23 January from the Secretary of State for Energy. It states:
Since your letters of 24 December and 6 January, my private office have sent you a copy of the Meteorological Office's report on the possible environmental impacts if Saddam Hussein should set fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells. The report suggests that, in the worst case scenario, there would indeed be environmental harm but that the only possible longterm effect is the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global warming which would be almost negligible.
It is the word "negligible" that some of us question. The Energy Secretary went on:
There is no indication of global environmental catastrophe. The Met Office, as you know, have an excellent reputation in this field and their report should now ensure that these issues are seen in a proper perpective.
Who on earth wrote the final draft of the Meteorological Office report? I have given notice of that question, so I hope for an answer. Was it really Dr. Keith Browning FRS, with whom I spoke on the telephone at Christmas, but who was understandably inhibited in what he said to me? It would be one thing to say, "We don't know", but another to play down the worst possible scenario and to write a report that allowed the Secretary of State for Energy to dismiss our fears as "negligible".
If, by chance, the document produced by the Met Office on the possible environmental impacts of burning oil wells, and which I am about to go through, was not Dr. Browning's original report, but doctored by Whitehall, the Commons should be told. The first paragraph of the Met Office document states:


The Meteorological Office has been asked by the Government to assess the environmental consequences of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. The estimates given below are based on preliminary calculations and on limited information.
That is strange wording for a fellow of the Royal Society.
The paragraph continues:
There are uncertainties due to lack of knowledge in many areas, ranging from the characteristics of the smoke emitted, to the chemical reactions which would take place and the nature of the weather conditions.
If there were uncertainties, how did Dr. Browning reach the conclusions that he did? Paragraph 2 of the report states:
For the purposes of estimating environmental impacts, the Meteorological Office was advised to take the following worst case scenario: the quantity of oil burnt would be equivalent to one year of Kuwait's pre-invasion production of 80 million tonnes (Mt) per year spread out over one year. This would give rise to approximately 2 Mt of sulphur in the form of sulphur oxides, 0·5 Mt of nitrogen in the form of nitrogen oxides and 60 Mt of carbon as carbon dioxide gas. A further assumption is that 6% of the oil would be converted to black smoke, yielding 5 Mt. Other assumptions could lead to different emissions and the amounts, in particular, of smoke could be significantly less. There are several possible effects, as considered in the following paragraphs.
Paragraph 3 states:
The only possible long term effect is the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global warming. This will be almost negligible.
Did Dr. Browning really write about,
the only possible long term effect"?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between the emissions and consequences of the flaring of oil and gas in an uncontrolled way and some of the uncontrolled emissions that occur when oil and gas are used commercially? Surely that results in the same combustion. I ask my question in the spirit of genuine inquiry.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall have a go at answering that on another occasion. My blunt answer must be that my speech is long enough and others want to participate—

Mr. Bottomley: It was a genuine question.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure it was. It is an important question, but I would rather not be diverted.
Paragraph 4 of the Met Office document states:
Acid deposition from sulphur and nitrogen compounds could be significant close to Kuwait, but would probably not have serious widespread long-term consequences.
Did Dr. Browning write that? The paragraph continues:
Close to and downwind of Kuwait, the concentrations of ground-level ozone could be comparable with those typical of photochemical smogs in major cities.
If Dr. Browning was talking about photochemical smogs, how do we draw the general conclusion that scientists warnings can be dismissed? Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Met Office report state:
Close to Kuwait, the plume could cause a considerable reduction in daylight and daytime temperatures.
Emissions of black smoke could produce effects in areas remote from Kuwait, if the smoke were sufficiently dense and reached the upper atmosphere.
Did Dr. Browning really use the words "if" and "could"?
The paragraph continues:
Whether or not the smoke reached the upper atmosphere would depend critically on the absorption of sunlight by the smoke, which depends on its physical characteristics, and hence on details of the combustion. Other relevant factors are the efficiency with which rain and other processes remove the smoke from the atmosphere.

The effect of the smoke on global temperatures is likely"—I stress "likely"
to be small. Downwind of Kuwait, the obscuration of sunlight might significantly reduce the surface temperature locally".
Was the word "might" really Dr. Browning's? The paragraph continues:
This in turn could locally reduce the rainfall over parts of SE Asia during the period of the summer monsoon. The uncertainty of these estimates, and the great natural variability seasonally and locally in the monsoon, are emphasised.
As far as I am concerned, the document has the fingerprints of Whitehall all over it. It has played down the consequences. For 24 years I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist and I am used to reading heavyweight articles from scientists. The document does not appear to be the kind of paper to be produced by a scientist. If I am wrong, I shall be told.
Paragraph 8 of the document states:
If the smoke reaches the ozone layer, the smoke particles and nitrogen oxides could lead to small reductions in ozone concentrations within the northern hemisphere. However, any effects at a given location on the ground would be short lived.
Was that really the considered conclusion of the scientists? I have dwelt on that document at some length because the tragedy is that if the truth, as it was known to many scientists, had been acknowledged, Saddam Hussein—given his knowledge of what might happen to southern Iraq—might not have ordered the ignition of the oil wells. When we were playing down the ecological catastrophe, doubtless, the Iraqis were listening. If we had told the truth about that ecological catastrophe, other events might have been different.
Dr. John Cox, who was the most prominent in his warnings, is the scientific equivalent of the Birmingham Six. John Cox, Tim Eiloart, Penny Kemp and others who campaigned at the conference in time to avoid the ecological disaster are owed a bit of an apology. I hope that the Minister is rather more gracious than the Home Secretary was to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
I must also pay tribute to Mr. Ormerod, Mr. Ron Huzzard and others of Labour Action for Peace. In its most recent pamphlet it stated:
Scientists at the conference organised by the Medical Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons"—
it has an honourable record in this matter—
on 14 November estimated that one million civilians could be injured and over 100,000 killed in a Gulf war. A Washington think tank gives a military casualty list of 210,000, with 40,000 dead. Dr. Hugh Middleton, a psychologist said: 'We believe it would be an irrational response, akin to mass mental illness, to go to war in the Gulf, in the face of all these potential casualties'.
It makes no difference that the casualties were mostly on one side because there has been nothing like it in terms of casualty ratios since the Conquistadors. I fear that the numbers, as predicted, have turned out to be true.
One must be fair and I want to draw attention to what the Green party has said about the environmental consequences of the Gulf war. That may or may not meet with the approval of my Chief Whip, who is courteously present. However, in the past few months a number of us have shared platforms with members of the Green party.
I quote from a letter by Roger Giles of Exeter:
As you know the Green Party co-organised the symposium on the environmental consequences of the Gulf war which was held in London on 2 January.


As a result John Wakeham, Energy Secretary, immediately sought to play down the conclusions reached by many eminent people present at the symposium, using the device of writing to John Hannam (Exeter MP and Energy Committee Secretary), and releasing the letter to the media, the purpose being to head off any public opposition to a war which such consequences might prejudice.
I have seen the various papers emanating from the Department of Energy, including the letter from John Wakeham to you dated 7 January in which he refers to 'your anonymous caller'. Presumably this refers to the DoE official who disputed pie scientific basis for Mr. Wakeham's attempted put-down.
I should say that I recognise it is not usual to correspond with an MP from another constituency, but I must say that I am unhappy with how Mr. Hannam has dealt with this matter.
Exeter Green Party's Suzanne Dunstan took part in the original symposium on 2nd January (and subsequent gatherings) and was also a member of the Green Party trip to Baghdad in January. The matter is clearly, therefore, one that concerns us greatly.
I am aware of your considerable efforts in this area, and have followed reports of your endeavours in Hansard. I note that you have managed to secure a debate in the House of Commons on Friday 15th March.
Exeter Green Party feels particularly aggrieved about this matter. We warned before the war commenced that environmental catastrophe was probable. The Government disinformation machine sprang into action to counter this. Sadly the predictions have become reality. As I have said I have taken this matter up with John Hannam. The best service he has been able to offer is that of a post office from the Department of Energy. I have enclosed a copy of the correspondence for your information. Remarks such as' ….any action taken by Saddam Hussein to blow up oil wells in Kuwait will not pose the environmental disaster which your party are forecasting' are a pretty damning indictment. It occurs to me that we have an environmental disaster on a vast scale. Apart from seeing the world's largest ever oil spill, and all the horrific consequences of burning oil wells, we have a Gulf equivalent of Chernobyl and also the unknown effects of bombing chemical plants.
It does concern us greatly that a Government Minister can see it as his duty to distort the facts as Mr. Wakeham has done. I hope that you will manage to expose the untruths that have been promoted during the last few months. Hopefully the truth will out, even if it is only reluctantly, belatedly and as the result of persistence on the part of yourself and other determined individuals.
The priority now, as we see it, is for the co-operation on the part of the allies to conduct a destructive war, to be channelled into making good the environmental catastrophe which has taken place. I made this crucially important argument to Mr. Hannam recently. He was so moved by my arguments and the need for urgent action—that he sent me a standard acknowledgement thanking me for my thoughts!
I have seen that letter from the secretary of the Conservative party energy committee, in which he says:
the advice is that any action taken by Saddam Hussein to blow up oil wells in Kuwait will not pose the environmental disaster which your Party are forecasting.
The environmental harm is clearly colossal. Vipin Gupta of Imperial college, London, who is the analyst of the images, said that by 21 February black smoke covered 11,000 sq km. Since then, there are pictures of darkness at noon in Kuwait, with 3 million to 6 million barrels a day going up in flames. After 30 days, the area covered by soot cloud could be 4 million sq km. The earth's surface temperature is already 10 deg lower than normal. Kuwait's oil is rich in sulphur and 3 million barrels a day, burning for a year, will pour out about 4 million tonnes of sulphur

dioxide into the atmosphere. Together with nitrogen oxides in the smoke, that will produce millions of tonnes of acid rain.
Frank Barnaby says that the smoke cloud seems to be affecting the region's climate, dramatically increasing the amount of rainfall. However, the rain is not the healthy, life-giving rain of Britain but sinister, black and oily—of a kind last seen after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
The Minister cannot dispute those facts because the Conservative party brief says:
Satellites have also detected smoke 750 miles downwind of the war zone in Iran and 'black rain' has been reported as far as away as southern Turkey.
Rachel Whetstone's report also says:
The fires have resulted in dark, 'twilight' skies at mid-day within a 50 kilometre radius of the burning wells. Temperatures have fallen below the average for this time of year. In the heavily affected areas photochemical smog is developing, which may cause sore eyes and throats and create breathing difficulties for the elderly and newly born.
On 28 February, James Meek, of The Scotsman, wrote:
The southern Kuwaiti desert was like the day of judgement. Not a nuclear winter, but a petrochemical autumn. The consequences of the Iraqis burning of the oil wells was tongues of flame all round the compass and the ground vomiting black, stinking smoke. Rain lashed down the faces of the US marines, to make them look like coal miners, and a strong wind rushed across the dunes. Long before the sun went down, its light was soaked up by a dense, unnatural twilight.
On 4 March, Gordon Airs, of the Record, wrote:
I drove north to the Iraqi border, and saw the price that Kuwait has paid to be freed. It is a ruined land. I passed 50 oil wells blazing fiercely, turning the blue sky into a giant blackness.
What effort has been made to monitor hydrogen sulphide and what can be done? I return, yet again, to Paul Krutyen of the Max Planck Institute for Atmospheric Physics in Mainz, who investigated the North sea potential danger in the early 1980s when there was a possibility of attack. Professor Krutyen told me to contact Russell Seitz. The ever-helpful science section of the Library has provided the following note on the eco-consequences of the Gulf:
I am now writing to you with the results of my telephone call to Mr. Russell Seitz in Massachusetts.
As you indicated, Mr. Seitz has suggested that measures could be taken to improve the combustion of the oil burning in Kuwaiti wells and installations. Mr. Seitz told me that he has submitted his views in a letter to the journal Nature for publication on 21st March. As you may know, Nature normally insists that ideas and material it has agreed to publish must not be aired elsewhere beforehand. Both Mr. Seitz and the editor of Nature (John Maddox) have agreed that, in this instance, the following information may be used by you in the debate and attributed to Mr. Seitz provided that it is made clear that the full details will subsequently be published in Nature.
The essence of this proposal is that oxygen (in practice, air) could be inserted into the Kuwaiti oil fires in order to aid complete combustion, thereby lowering the volume of carbon (soot) and partially combusted hydrocarbons being released into the atmosphere. Mr. Seitz pointed out the difficulties of fire-fighting under the present conditions in Kuwait, as much of the country's infrastructure has been destroyed and water is in extremely short supply. In particular, he raised the possibility of a shortage of transport for the heavy equipment needed to fight the oil fires, such as earth-moving machinery. Air is obviously not in short supply, but there is the question of how the equipment needed to blast large volumes of air into the fire columns will be moved to the sites of the fires. Finally, Mr. Seitz highlighted that the current situation is unprecedented and that unconventional combustion engineering may therefore be needed to tackle a problem of this scale.


I am in no position to judge whether that is a sensible suggestion. However, if Professor Krutyen, with the backing of the Max Planck institute, says that it is a constructive way to proceed, the Government should consider that constructive suggestion.
The crisis is of such a magnitude that it cannot be left to contracts with firms that operate on the say-so of Red Adair and have never tackled anything on such a scale. I shall not criticise the apparent dependence on a man who is now in his mid-70s, with a stroke behind him, because he is backed by an organisation. Instead, I ask, should the world think it sufficient to leave the problem in the hands of Red Adair, Boots and Coots, the Bowden Wild Well Control, and a Canadian firm, Safety Boss, which are geared through their experience to tackling one or two blow-outs at a time?
The motion calls for a massive multinational civil engineering project on the scale of the military operation. Nothing less will do. There has been no experience of dealing with such a huge conflagration. I do not expect the Minister to dispute that because Rachel Whetstone's brief to the Conservatives concludes:
Any action is impeded by unexploded mines and booby-traps. Many of the wells in the Saudi/Kuwaiti neutral zone require pumping to bring the oil to the surface, and these fires have, or soon will, die through lack of fuel. The problem lies with the 500 odd wells in northern Kuwait that will produce a self-sustaining fire that could burn indefinitely.
That is the problem that we face.
We must be practical and ask who will clear the mines and booby traps in temperatures of 200 deg C. I heard on the excellent Radio FM coverage, the young Paul Wayne, Mr. Adair's grandson in the firm, state that he needed two dozen water pumps per well and ask where the water was to come from. Raymond Henry, vice-president of Mr. Adair's firm, talked about 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of water being needed per minute on each site. It will take two months to lay pipes to bring sea water 100 miles from the sea. That is absolutely out of the range of firms such as Mr. Adair's, however brave and technically skilled they may be. We need an international operation. I have given Energy Ministers notice of that question, and look forward to hearing their thoughts.
Another related question is how the 0·5 tonne cranes will get near enough to their task in substances where the sand is so hot that it is like melting glass. Hon. Members may have heard Mr. Adair say:
No one can tell how long it will last—I don't care who it is—if we can do this in three years, we'll be lucky.
It is not known how long it will last and the costs involved are mind-boggling. Each support person is paid $700 a day and the fire fighters receive $1,500 to $1,700 a day.
When the Prime Minister saw what he called
the depressing and appalling sight of smoke clouds over Kuwait",
I wonder whether he recollected the exchange that we had when I asked oral question 1 on 11 December:
To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) of 13 November, Official Report, column 446, if he will specify those figures which he possesses relating to oil stocks, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, which differ from those given by the King Hussein, showing in each case the comparable figures and the source for those which he uses.
The present Prime Minister replied:
No, Sir. The calculations rest on assumptions about the consequences of a conflict in the Gulf which, by nature, are

not quantifiable. The best way to avoid any adverse consequences is for Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions in full.
I then asked:
Is not the spine-chilling truth that no mining engineer, no scientist, and no politician knows for certain what will occur if 300 deep-mined oil wells are detonated?
My mistake was to suggest that the figure was only 300; it is now 500 or, if the Kuwait Petroleum Company's figure is right, 800. I continued:
In those circumstances, might not the fires rage for months, if not years, in a fashion quite outside human experience? In view of that, should not the damage to the planet, let alone the human slaughter and the Arab ecological disaster, rule out any talk of a military option?
The Prime Minister replied:
As the hon. Gentleman says, no one can he absolutely and precisely certain about the outcome. In so far as it is possible to make an assessment, we see no reason to agree with any of the views put forward thus far as to what the outcome may be."—[Official Report, 11 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 814.]
On what basis did the Prime Minister say that? The Government had had notice of my question. A month earlier I asked the former Prime Minister to make a statement on her discussions in Geneva with King Hussein of Jordan in relation to the ecological consequences of war in the middle east. The former Prime Minister replied:
My bilateral discussions with King Hussein did not cover this subject, as I made clear to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November. However, if a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedom and justice may be restored, tyranny will triumph in all its brutality and the environment of human rights, which we seek to extend, will have received a fatal blow.
I replied:
If King Hussein is right and 50,000 million barrels of oil equivalent go up in flames, what will be the result in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and what would that do to people and the planet?"—[Official Report, 13 November; Vol. 180, c. 446.]
The former Prime Minister did not answer that question. As I am not making a party political point, I shall add, in candour, that the Labour party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), saw me courteously and privately at the end of November to discuss the ecological consequences. I am not making a party point, but saying to politicians, my colleagues—for goodness sake, what kind of scientific assessment is made before actions are set in motion that could have the most disastrous consequences? The hell of the matter is that, had politicians been less dismissive of the scientists' warning, Saddam Hussein and Iraq might have taken more notice of the effect on southern Iraq, parts of which are likely to be as badly affected as Kuwait.
The final section of the motion calls on the Government to fight disease in Kuwait and, as far as possible, in Baghdad and other cities. I shall confine myself to one question on Kuwait. I am told by Bill Spiers, of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, who has deep knowledge of the Palestinian problem, that a respectable case can be made for saying that the Palestinians are responsible for much of the prosperity of Kuwait, and that many of them have made their home there for 30 years. Will they be allowed to languish there, uncared for, or simply sent on their way with nowhere to go?
Earlier in the week I telephoned the Foreign Office to ask for Her Majesty's Government's views. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has a chance to speak, he will repeat the moving speech that I heard him make in Committee on the


problem of what he called the pogroms. His speech contained other powerful sections drawn from his deep knowledge of the Palestinian communities, which he has visited.
During the war, it was reiterated time and again that the coalition had no quarrel with the Iraqi people. If we assume that that is true, do we not have an obligation to offer medical and health-related help? Whatever the recent past, the here-and-now is that more than 4 million people in Baghdad face a public health crisis of vast proportions because of what international health authorities call
grossly inadequate water and sanitation services.
The Red Cross says that, unless Iraq immediately receives massive international relief, the city could soon suffer outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis and polio. The drinking water for millions of people comes from the Tigris river, which is being fouled by gushing streams of raw sewage. Water purification plants have been disabled and the electrical generating plants that powered them have been destroyed. Dr. Mohammed Ani, director of immunisation and primary health care for the Iraqi Ministry of Health, said:
We are being killed indirectly.
I was moved by John Pilger's accounts when he said that the weakest, youngest and oldest would be the first to suffer. Mr. Rojo, the correspondent of El Mundo, said that 50 children a day were dying in Baghdad for want of electricity. He referred to water-borne diseases as "that silent assassin." The water-borne diseases may prove the greatest danger. Dr. Ezio Gianni Murzi, an Italian who represents the United Nations children's fund in Iraq, sees as a major problem the 65 million cubic yards flowing from Baghdad into the Tigris every month. Air raids targeted plants that manufactured purification chemicals such as chlorine. With the pumping stations knocked out, water cannot be pumped from the river to the treatment plants. How are the Government responding to the urgent appeal from UNICEF and the World Health Organisation for water treatment chemicals? What is the supply of chlorine in Baghdad? Have the coalition even asked?
Raymond Naimy, a UNICEF emergency official, said that Baghdad's water supply had been cut by 90 to 95 per cent. at a time when Iraq's brief chilly spring was ending, and the scorching summer was to begin. The risk of disease will increase dramatically as the weather turns hot over the next few weeks. I shall be personal for a moment, though relevant—my father, as a young man before the first world war, was private secretary to Sir William Willcocks, Britain's most famous imperial water engineer, who attempted to recreate the ancient irrigation systems, and thereby fashioned most of Iraq. Central to his scheme, Willcocks completed the Hindaya barrage in 1914. The management of rivers is central to what is a hydraulic civilisation. How can a third world country be expected to repair such damage by its own efforts?
Because of the shortage of time, I will simply say that the same argument applies to Kuwait. There is a desperate need for us to do something about the appalling health problems there. I raised the matter at Scottish Office Question Time on 6 March, and I have been told that a brief has been sent by the Scottish Office to the Minister who will reply to this debate. Meantime, on 13 March, the Minister of State, Scottish Office wrote to me saying:

Following my answer to your supplementary question on 6 March … you asked about the assistance which might be given by the NHS in Scotland to alleviate the problems of communicable diseases in Kuwait and Iraq. I understand that the international arrangements for the provision of emergency medical aid to these countries is being co-ordinated and undertaken by the United Nations and its agencies such as UNICEF. This should helpfully ensure that assistance is fully synchronised and appropriately focused. I can assure you, however, that any specific request for help from the National Health Service in Scotland, which is compatible with these arrangements, would be quickly and sympathetically considered. Moreover, I have no doubt that if a Scottish doctor or other professional wished to participate in the current international response, health boards would look favourably on any such proposal.
What about sanctions? We are left only with our own unproven assessments about whether, given longer, sanctions would have worked. But consider the strength of the United States and British insistence that sanctions must remain in place until Iraq has complied with all the relevant United Nations resolutions. The Foreign Secretary said that sanctions should not be lifted lightly or prematurely, and he claimed that their potency should not be underestimated. In that case, how come that a weapon that was deemed inadequate to dislodge the Iraqis from Kuwait is now deemed too important to surrender, now that they have gone?
In addition to all the other problems, there are the problems created by the thousands of returning troops, maimed and injured to Baghdad.
There should be an urgent response to the UNICEF and WHO requests and requirements. We should go further. Far from acquiescing in President Bush's statement that he would not give a dime to Iraq, we should offer some places in British hospitals that were cleared for our returning wounded to maimed Kuwaitis and Iraqis, be they Shi'ites, Kurds or other injured.
Ambassador von Richthofen understandably sent the Minister of State for the Armed Forces a copy of a letter that he wrote to me following a question that I put to the German ambassador at Lord Kimberley's defence group about provision in Federal Republic hospitals. I hope that the British Government are prepared to have discussions with the EEC countries about that. It might be helpful if I were to read into the record Baron Hermann von Richthofen's letter to me, in which he wrote:
Thank you very much indeed for your kind letter dated 19 February 1991.
With reference to the matter of German medical support for British forces in the Gulf, I should like to inform you about the whole issue:
Firstly, the Federal German Government has offered facilities in German hospitals including beds for wounded soldiers both for British and American troops. The British authorities have not accepted this offer as yet.
Secondly, there have been flights carried out by the German Armed Forces from Cyprus in support of British forces; casualty evacuation could be part of it.
Thirdly, since the end of last year German medical officers have been working in British Armed Forces hospitals located in Germany in lieu of their British colleagues currently deployed in the Gulf.
In addition to this governmental support also private initiatives are taking place. For example one of the major German Ambulance Organisations (Johanniter Unfallhilfe) has offered its full service for British Gulf casualties in close co-operation with St. John's Ambulance.
I felt it appropriate to send a copy of this letter to Mr. Archie Hamilton, MP, Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
On 18 February 1991 I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities were available in Bundeswehr


hospitals for Gulf wounded, and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replied that there were no plans to use Bundeswehr hospitals for the treatment of British personnel wounded in the Gulf.
What is the Minister's response to an article in The Sunday Times by Sean Ryan under the headline:
Vast Gulf pollution cloud heads towards Europe"?
I am told that that is not true, but perhaps the Minister should comment on it.
Hon. Members will know that I am not emotional about many subjects. But I suggest that, emotionally, we shall be haunted for a long time to come by what has happened in the last few weeks. We shall be haunted in particular by what occurred on the Basra road. That was done in the name of the American Congress and the British House of Commons. It is up to us to establish the truth. I do not know where the truth will lead us, on that and other matters, but for our future relations with the Arab world, we have a solid obligation to get to the truth, wherever it may lead us. What was done will haunt not only those in my age group but those in the age group of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), on the Opposition Front Bench, and that of the Minister.
This debate represents a small attempt to discuss alleviating what some of us believe was a historic mistake.

Miss Emma Nicholson: That we should be having this debate at all is a measure of the tragic suffering in the Gulf. I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the great scientific expertise and diligence of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to whose speech we listened with the greatest care and attention, as it deserved. Indeed, his ecological warnings have proved all too true.
However, had there been no use of force by us—had we abstained from war—the human, animal and bird suffering would have been infinite. I fear that we see the left wing's failure of perception in large degree. Saddam Hussein's hatred of humans is mirrored only by his equivalent hatred of the world in which we live. As the Secretary of State for the Environment said on 28 January of this year, words are inadequate to describe the callousness and irresponsibility of his action in deliberately unleashing this environmental catastrophe.
Had Saddam Hussein accepted one of the many peace initiatives put forward by the allies, in which Her Majesty's Government were in the forefront, he would have saved not only 140,000 Iraqi lives, his own people, but the physical devastation of the earth and sea. It was unthinkable, but it happened.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to a number of ways in which the west could respond, and has responded; the purpose of this debate must be to look forward. He spoke about the UNICEF paper. I dined last Friday with Dr. Jolly and heard about the awful things that have happened to Baghdad's water supply. The hon. Gentleman castigated the Government for, he claimed, doing nothing, but I am delighted to report that a joint Oxfam-Save the Children Fund team is out there looking at the situation. I have no doubt that when they return with proposals, the Overseas Development Administration will look at them with great sympathy.
At the height of the war, I put to the Foreign Office questions about the sort of actions that the British Government might take to help Iraqi children after the

war. The response was good and warm and I have had subsequent correspondence and meetings on the subject. I have no doubt that the Government's response on behalf of the children of our former enemies will not be wanting.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Miss Nicholson: I must get to Devon urgently to open a new school, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
The response of the British Government was immediate and effective, for example, in offering key expertise and funding from Britain. Our Prime Minister responded immediately, and I have quoted the Secretary of State for the Environment. That came as no surprise to my hon. Friends and it should not have surprised Opposition Members. Our former Prime Minister committed the United Kingdom to an environmental outlook several years ago. Our former United Nations ambassador, Sir Crispin Tickell, is one of the world's leading environmental specialists. He has been committed to the environment since he was a boy and has been at the forefront of Britain's work in this area.
As a result of that great work, we were thus the first country to respond financially to the International Maritime Organisation's appeal for money. We immediately gave £1 million. The Department of the Environment's key experts in pollution control and the ecology went immediately to the Gulf to help. We have ordered three oil recovery skimmers, with a value of £300,000, to go to Bahrain. On 28, 29 and 30 January we sent no fewer than 90 tonnes of anti-pollution equipment to the Gulf by air. We undertook that first-class cluster of important measures at the very height of the war.
What more can we do now, despite the fact, which can be so readily overlooked now that our own forces are not so heavily involved, that the conflict in the Gulf is continuing? We can help more. The United Kingdom has vast knowledge of induced breathing difficulties—a lucky heritage, in terms of knowledge, from London's smog. It is important to work on that, because the incomplete combustion of oil-producing carcinogens may cause cancer. Our medical help might be offered to assess and limit that damage to humans and animals. Perhaps both historically and currently, due to our background, we have more knowledge about the health and welfare of many of the peoples of the Gulf and surrounding countries, including even India, than many other countries. I am sure that our work would be well considered, well respected and well accepted by those nations. I hope that we shall help in that way.
The United Kingdom also has much weather expertise. Indeed, we talk about it all the time. The Meteorological Office has been running special weather models throughout the war. Perhaps it could continue to do so and to offer two-day forecasts of the dispersion and wash-out of pollutants. That would offer valid warnings to people in the Gulf area and beyond. When I use the word "valid", I cannot help but remind the House of the public's disbelief in the validity of the Met Office's forecasts in recent years. Much time has passed since the Met Office could not understand why everybody laughed when its spokesman said plaintively, in a public statement, "We cannot understand why the general public do not believe our forecasts. After all, they are right for 50 per cent. of the time." I could do as well by flipping a coin, but I most


certainly do not have its great expertise in matters relating to the Gulf. Perhaps scientific uncertainty over the behaviour of the smoke in certain conditions could be reduced by measurements of smoke plume characteristics by the Met Office's research aircraft. Those investigations are critical to confirm whether climate-effect predictions are valid.
We also have extensive knowledge of acid rain from, for example, the Department of Trade and Industry's Warren Spring laboratory. Perhaps our involvement in such work in the Gulf would also help our long-term understanding of pollution processes that are relevant to acid rain in Europe, which would be of large and continuing importance to our own industrial behaviour patterns and to the measures that the Government have introduced to ensure the best control of such things.
Finally, our expertise in the environmental impact of such incidents is crucial. Environmental impact and environmental assessments lie at the heart of our own Government's policy on the environment. Perhaps the universities, especially Imperial college, could help. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested that the Meteorological Office and other areas of United Kingdom expertise may well be useful in the next stage of this ghastly tragedy.
The Government, so far, have responded in an appropriately thoughtful, professional and effective manner. I and other colleagues await our next moves as a country and a Government with interest and high expectations.

Mr. George Galloway: To her credit, the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) may well have listened carefully to the powerful exposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but sadly the Government Whip did not listen with quite the same respect. The man whose cynicism has deepened with the length of time that he has spent on the Treasury Bench could say only at the close of my hon. Friend's remarks, "The Belgrano revisited".
Before turning to my main points, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I speak on behalf not only of Opposition Members and some Conservative Members, but certainly on behalf of the vast numbers of our fellow citizens whom we represent in the House. His indefatigable energy, remorseless integrity, intelligence and care have sustained him throughout his quest for the truth—yes, I advise the Government Whip that it was the truth—about the Belgrano and about many other issues going back over decades. I pay tribute to him also for his approach now to these important and vital issues when we are attempting to calibrate the true cost of the enterprise in which we have just been involved.
The bitterly hard thing for some of us to accept on the Ides of March is that we have had to listen to the list of the casualties of that enterprise, as given by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, and who could do so without a deepening sense of foreboding about the true cost of the enterprise? It is vastly greater than the popular media and some of the more gung-ho Conservative Members would have us believe.
There are those of us, such as myself, who have been Saddam Hussein's bitter opponents for as long as he has been in power in Baghdad. There are people, such as myself, who have marched, petitioned, written, railed and ranted at the dictatorship in Baghdad, and it is bitterly difficult for us to see the attitude of those Conservative Members who did not want to hear what we were saying and who wanted to say little and do even less about the bestialities that were committed by the dictatorship in Baghdad. For them, the dictatorship was merely a bloody good customer. That is the truth of the matter.
Those of us who had a track record of opposing the dictatorship argued that if we got into a war of the kind that was being contemplated, the consequences would be so devastating that they would outweigh any good that could be done. No one ever argued that force against a dictator such as Saddam Hussein was not justified. We argued whether such force was wise and whether the cost of the use of that massive force would outweigh the good that it would do. Conservative Members would do themselves some credit by acknowledging that. When we hear from them that it was all a great success and was achieved, to quote the Daily Mail last week,
at a cost of a handful of lives",
we begin to see the vast gulf—I hope that the House will forgive that unintended pun—between the truth as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and that popular perception. The liberation of Kuwait was not achieved at the cost of only a handful of lives.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Surely the vast gulf, which can be perceived by Conservative Members and by anybody listening to the debate, is between what the hon. Gentleman said at the time of the conflict and his attempt now to rewrite history.

Mr. Galloway: I can be accused of many things, but seeking to distort the truth is not one of them. I am about to say, if the hon. Gentleman will let me, exactly what I said throughout the months after the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August and what I have been saying for 15 years, which is a hell of a lot longer than the hon. Gentleman has been talking about the regime in Baghdad. Perhaps we can consult the record on that.
The true cost has been and will be paid by people in that area, by the ecology and environment of the area, and by all of us on the globe. The true cost is far greater than the straw hats and trumpets brigade—the vulgar triumphalists, some of whom sit on the Conservative Benches—want the country to believe. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow described the vast environmental and ecological disaster which that enterprise has created. I hope that the Government have something constructive to say, not only about what they will do to try to arrest what is happening. Month after month, hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend, predicted exactly what has happened on the environmental front. The Government should also say why the same effort that moved half a million men and all their fighting equipment was not expended on simple matters of civil and marine engineering, such as booms and other equipment. They could have been air-lifted with the military equipment and would have obviated some of the difficulties that we now face.
The same mentality that turns a Nelson's eye to environmental costs turns a Nelson's eye to the vast mountain of incinerated human beings who were killed


because they had dark faces and because they had the misfortune to have been born in Iraq. The vast majority of human beings who made up that mountain of dead people never supported Saddam Hussein, never voted for Saddam Hussein, never voted for the war, and never in any sense offered any support to the Baathist regime in Baghdad, yet they were shot "like fish in a bowl". They were massacred "like rabbits in a sack". Other disgusting metaphors were plastered across our newspapers over the past few weeks. No one can talk about environmental damage or damage to the atmosphere without coming to terms with the fact that the massacre on the Basra road will haunt the world, as my hon. Friend said, for many decades to come. A Conservative Member smirks. Perhaps it does not haunt him.
No amount of washing of his hands will remove the black spot—[Interruption.] I note that the Government Whip has stopped yawning and is calling for the men in white coats. History will judge who were the lunatics who took control of the asylum over the past few months.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When will the hon. Gentleman refer to ecological problems in the Gulf and stop playing party politics?

Mr. Galloway: Anyone who knows my opinion of the Labour party's performance over the past few months would not accuse me of playing party politics in this matter. If the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) thinks that the environment includes only oil. ducks, drakes, trees and plants and not human beings, he has a strange idea of the environment.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend explain the powerful analogy about half-drowned men?

Mr. Galloway: I was about to refer to the plight of the Palestinians who are trapped in their ghetto in Kuwait city. A day or perhaps two days after the war, the Prime Minister gave me a courteous answer and has acted on the problem in the intervening days. I referred to the dangers of a new pogrom—a new Sabra and Shatilla-type massacre—occurring in Kuwait city. A couple of days after I raised that matter with the Prime Minister, Robert Fisk and other senior and eminent journalists in this country—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) guffaws his contempt for Robert Fisk, too. Perhaps I should be gratefgul to be included in such company. The hon. Gentleman should save his contempt until he makes his speech. I should not be diverted by such puerility.
Fisk and other journalists from the English-speaking world have written movingly of their sense of foreboding as the witch hunt mentality develops in Kuwait city. For nearly 20 years I have been concerned with Palestine. The people of Dirr Yasshin, the people who have been beseiged and massacred in country after country in the middle east, the people of Sabra and Shatilla this very morning are locked in their homes—when there is a virtual curfew in the area—wondering whether the knock on the door in Kuwait city will be as deadly as the knock on the door has been for Palestinians in countries throughout that area. That is because of a caricature of the position of the Palestinians who opposed the invasion of Kuwait and opposed aggression against Kuwait but could not stand by neutrally when, in their view America transformed it into a war of the big powers against an Arab country.
I was in the occupied territories, in the town of Jericho underneath Mount Temptation, talking to a moderate professor of politics, Sa'eb Erakat. That man has met our Foreign Secretary and his predecessor, and James Baker and his predecessor. He is on the regular circuit of discussion with international leaders. He is currently incarcerated under town arrest in Jericho, many miles from his university in Nablus, which, in any case, has been closed by the military authorities for the past three years. He addressed the Palestinian approach to the Kuwait-Iraqi-American-British conflict, and said, "We Palestinians were a drowning people, adrift on the ocean, with international ships sailing in the opposite direction pretending that they could not hear our call of distress. Along came a ship flying our flag as well as its own, the flag of Iraq. It stopped by us drowning people adrift on the ocean, and offered to lift us on board. What were we to do—ask for the human rights record of the captain or for the bona fides of his ownership of the vessel before we climbed aboard? The ships that sailed in the opposite direction were responsible for our plight." That is part of the environment of the area and it will be part of the history of the events of the past five months.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) is passionately sincere, but the somewhat hysterical character of some of his remarks has not made it easier for me to support, as I fully intend to do, the main tenor of the argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The fact that the Opposition Back Benches are occupied almost entirely by hon. Members who have taken an uncritical attitude of opposition to almost any use of armed force by Her Majesty's Government does not make my task any easier. There is a conspicuous absence of those who may be called moderates on the Labour Back Benches.
I am glad to have the opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Linlithgow has done the House and the nation a service by focusing attention on this issue and by setting out so vividly and in such detail the scale of the ecological and environmental consequences of the Gulf war. He knows the high personal regard which I have for him. I cannot always follow him in his battles—sometimes they seem to be battles against windmills. I usually part company from him sharply when he pursues, as he rather notably did not do today, the conspiracy theory of history. I am a devout believer in the cock-up theory.
As it happens, I believe that the Government have done well in their action to help clear up—perhaps that is not the right expression for putting a sticking-plaster on a gaping arterial wound—after the war. At any rate they have done well by rushing like Mrs. Partington with her mop vigorously pushing back the Atlantic ocean. The Atlantic ocean, as admirers of Sydney Smith will recall, beat Mrs. Partington. If the hon. Gentleman is in the business of blaming the Government for showing less enthusiasm for clearing up the mess than for getting into the war, I am not with him. The action announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 28 January was prompt and well judged as a contribution to clearing up the most immediate threat to the environment from the conflict—the spreading oil


slicks in the Gulf. The effort, prompt as it was, does not begin to match in scale the effort that we put into the war or the real needs of the truly alarming environmental catastrophe. That, alas, mirrors human attitudes. It is easier to get massive support for a war than for cleaning up its aftermath.
Heaven knows, I did not want to get into the war. Even now I am not finally convinced that it was the lesser of two evils. It is just that I was driven to the conclusion that it was going to happen anyway because Saddam Hussein was determined to have a war so that he could pose as the Arab champion against Israel. If it was going to happen anyway, there was no realistic possibility of making it less awful by delaying it. It was the much criticised last-minute efforts at mediation by France and the Soviet Union which eventually convinced me that war was inevitable.
Just because I have no fault to find with the Government, either in their conduct of the war or in their response to the ecological catastrophe which has, entirely predictably, ensued, it does not mean that any of us can sit back and say, "We have done what needed to be done." Far from it. It is to public opinion in this country and the world outside that we need to address our warnings insistently and stridently.
The damage done by allied air action in Iraq and still more by the Iraqi scorched earth policy in Kuwait is irreparable. The most enormous efforts are called for from the world community even to mitigate the worst effects of that damage. To make matters worse, these efforts are called for at a time when famine once again threatens great swathes of Africa and the many millions of men, women and children who live there. The efforts that must be made to limit the damage in the middle east must be in addition to, not in place of, the efforts that the rich world makes to alleviate famine in Africa.
No hon. Member wants war. I wish I could say the same of the press, but I have found it hard to read The Sunday Times or The Sunday Telegraph, let alone the Sunday Express, The Sun or The Star without sensing a real relish for battle. I cannot avoid the feeling that even among the more responsible people, such as hon. Members who certainly did not want a war, there has been insufficient appreciation of how horrible war is. Because of that insufficient appreciation, I am not sure that in balancing the pros and cons of recourse to armed force, we necessarily came to the right conclusion. Yes, of course war brings out some heroic qualities of courage and self-sacrifice, but so do concentration camps. I hope that we will not start romanticising them.
It is a matter for rejoicing that the casualties on the allied side were so light, but the casualties on the Iraqi side were appalling. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, many of us will be haunted for the rest of our lives by the pictures of the carnage on the Basra road. I have no right to condemn the military action which produced that slaughter any more than I had a right to condemn the bombing of Dresden in 1945 or the dropping of the second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki. All three are copybook examples of the senseless butchery which war almost invariably brings in its train. When we weigh up whether in any given situation war is the lesser of two evils, we should recognise that such horrors are inseparable from it.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that before we jump to any conclusions about what happened on the Basra road we should have far more facts? May I repeat to him a request that I put to the Leader of the House during business questions and again last night on the motion for the Easter Adjournment, that the Government should give to the House the information that they have about the timing and their state of knowledge of what occurred? Then and only then can we make a judgment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I have little doubt that those facts will emerge. I have great faith in the persistence of investigative journalists to delve into those matters. It will all emerge in the course of time. One of the troubles was that the war ended so abruptly that public interest switched rapidly from horror at what happened on the Basra road to surging relief that the hostilities had ended. That has been a major factor. I have no doubt that such facts will emerge and I am glad to think that when they do the verdict will remain the same—that the military action probably was justified. That will still not relieve my sense of horror.
We are supposed to be debating environmental consequences, rather than the slaughter of men, women and children. The hon. Member for Hillhead equated the two, but there is a distinction in logic which has to be drawn. There is a danger of overstating the case. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made a number of remarkable interventions during debates on this matter, and laid himself wide open to the charge of overstating his case. But all too often it is the prophets of doom who are nearer the truth in the end than the bland reassurers. We are not yet at the end of the Chernobyl fall-out, and I say that as a supporter of nuclear power.
Clearly, we will all be baffled by science in this matter. The worldwide consequence of the smoke clouds from the burning oil wells and the spreading oil slicks are presumably too dependent on winds and tides and ordinary climatic factors to be safely predictable, but the regional and local consequences are only too predictably dire. The consequences for public health in Iraq of the destruction of the sewers and the water supplies are all too predictable and, of course, disease knows no national frontiers. There is a strong case for a relaxation of sanctions to the extent that is necessary to permit the importation not merely of medical supplies, but of the equipment that is needed to repair the damage to the sewers and the electricity supply. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about that.
I hope that the debate will focus public opinion on the consequences of war—not just on the number of people killed or maimed for the rest of their lives or those left without partners or parents or families whose life is permanently blighted, but on the destruction of cities and the ruination of the countryside. Modern methods of warfare spread such destruction and ruination many hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles from the battlefield.
Anyone who travels around Europe is constantly reminded of the loss of fine buildings and great works of art in earlier wars. This country has also suffered, especially from the destruction in London, Coventry, Liverpool and other great cities. I am not convinced that public opinion or the Government give full weight to such considerations when taking the fateful decisions about


whether the need to deter and punish aggression out weighs the predictable consequences of even the most "successful" war.
I think that I am still of the opinion that the decision to go ahead with military action in the Gulf was the lesser of two evils, but I do not by any means rule out the possibility that I may later have to change my mind.
I am certain that I am in no position to condemn Opposition Members, even those whom I have categorised in my speech as extremists, for their opposition to the war. I am still less able to criticise those who, like the hon. Member for Linlithgow, have continually reminded us of the awful consequences.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With two minor exceptions, I agree with every word of the careful and worthwhile speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). My two points of dissent are that I hold a different view on nuclear power and I am clear that Governments, both here and in the allied countries, did not take sufficient account of the environmental implications of the Gulf war before they committed us to military activity.
My views differ from those of the majority of Labour Members who are in the Chamber in that, like the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, when the French and Russian initiatives failed I came to the view that, irrespective of what had gone before, there was no international alternative to military action. I did riot find that view comfortable, because it was not one that I thought I would have reached. It does not change my view or that of all my colleagues, that the war was the result of diplomatic and political failure by world Governments. To reach a point at which there was no alternative to military action meant that we had failed the world community.
I listened with respect to the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). Like him, I have been to the occupied territories. It is almost irrelevant, but my first intervention in the press was made in my local paper when I was a teenager, and it was in support of the Palestinian cause. One of the failures that Britain has exemplified is the failure to understand exactly what drives people such as the Palestinians to accept support from wherever it comes. They do that because they have been denied support for so long by others. It is the same reason that persuaded Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela to support those who were driven to military action in South Africa. There comes a time when people cannot accept that peaceful passive resignation will lead to a satisfactory and just conclusion.
I entirely endorse the plaudits extended to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He has persistently sought, as I have done, although I concede that I have probably been less successful, to make sure that the environmental implications of the Gulf war were on the agenda of the House and the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead that there was and is massive concern in the country that the Government and politicians were not properly addressing that matter.
I and my party agree with every word in the motion. Our party conference started this morning in Nottingham and that is why my colleagues are not present for the debate. I may not be able to stay until 2.30. The hon. Member for Linlithgow has brought to the debate his

well-known scientific expertise and his dogged parliamentary perserverence. I hope that the Government will take seriously the widespread support, not just for a proper analysis, requested by the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West, of what has happened in terms of future decisions, but for vigorous action to deal with the consequences of the war and its environmental implications. I hope that we shall show as much determination in that as we showed in our prosecution of the war.
I also reiterate what the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West said about the press and people being jingoistic, aggressive and enthusiastic about things military and suddenly becoming uninterested about their environmental results. The balance is completely wrong.
One of the issues that must now be addressed is the potential implication of what has happened to the environment and the ecology in the middle east. The loss of marine life as a food source will have consequences for subsidence fishermen in the Gulf. That means that they and many others are at risk of becoming poorer and less able to survive than they ever have been in a marginal economy. Unless we have a much more co-ordinated, urgent and more widespread international response than we have seen so far, we shall leave the ravage of the war writ upon the seas and the land of the countries of the middle east and, potentially, condemn a politically very delicately balanced region to further risk of military conflagration.
It was said that the United Nations intervened to bring about a peaceful middle east, but economic and human poverty and degradation as a result of the war could make that peace far less likely, unless, in a different way, we now intervene. Therefore, the ecology and the environment are integrated with the peaceful future of the countries in the Gulf.
I shall deal specifically with two issues, that give us cause for continuing concern. The first is oil fires. I am advised that the figures that I am about to give are not specific, but the numbers are large enough to be able to be generally substantiated whatever their specificity. It is said that there are 650 or 700 oil fires—perhaps 800—burning in Kuwait. That means that between 3 million and 6 million barrels of oil are burning each day. The main economic source of that part of the world is literally going up in smoke. The consequences are widespread and they have been well set out. I hope that the Government will give full credence to the work that has been done at Imperial college by the global environment research centre, to which the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and others have referred.
There are consequences for human health that add to the chances of suffering from respiratory disease, infection and discomfort. There is the inevitability of acid deposition that makes those complaints worse.
There are consequences that will lead to the pollution of water, which is the principal source of life and survival. There is the risk of serious pollution of surface water as well as the pollution of underground water supplies as a result of soot and other fall-out from emissions.
Potentially there is a serious threat of a large-scale abuse of salt and polluted fresh water if these materials are used to dampen down temperatures and to put out fires. There are consequences for the soil in the region, the land and, therefore, agriculture. Acidification of the land would have a direct effect on the ability to produce crops and food for animals, upon which the economy depends.


Animals may be at risk from unexploded mines. The region is at best economically marginal and we should be keenly aware of the consequences.
There will be a huge consequential effect on marine life. The world often ignores marine pollution even when we take account of land pollution. It is an example of out of sight, out of mind. Wildlife, fish and marine ecosystems will inevitably be damaged and the time scale for their recovery is uncertain. Previous spillages in the Gulf have added to the present problems.
Lastly, there appear to be direct consequences in the form of sand encroachment, not least through sand storms, as a result of the disruption to the ecology of the middle east. That will have an effect on human settlements and agricultural settlements. We must pay full cognisance to that.
It is easy for us, in the comfort of an unaffected western society, to underestimate the consequences of environmental disruption., The results mean literally life or death for those who live much closer to nature than most of us in this society ever do.
Secondly, we need to have equal concern about the consequences of oil spillage and oil slicks. It seems that 3 million to 7 million barrels of oil have been discharged into the Gulf. Minimum bird mortalities are estimated at 10,000; the estimated current maximum is 20,000 birds. These include cormorants, grebes and potentially will include migrants which arrive in due course. There will be an effect on the fishing and shrimp industries as a result of the oil spill. The mud-flats will be affected. A series of beings in the food chain of the marine ecosystem are, without any doubt, affected already as a result of the oil spillages. The results are dramatic.
Desalination plants are at risk. Most importantly, there is unknown damage to the coral reefs in the middle east. Power stations and palaces can be rebuilt but coral reefs cannot. They are the rain forests of the sea. They support hundreds of species. They are a vital link in the food chain. We do not even know the damage that has been wrought to the reefs.
Thirdly, we know that Iraq and Kuwait were effectively a chemical and petrochemical cocktail. It is possible that 26 toxic substances have been released from petrochemical and other industries as a result of the conflict. I, too, pay tribute to the Medical Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons and the work that has been done so far, but we do not know yet how many plants, refineries and storage tanks have been damaged. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the former leader of the Liberal party, has expressed concern about the damage that would be caused by the release of toxic substances. There has been disruption of low-grade nuclear facilities in Iraq, and it is likely that there is contamination in small areas around those plants. Ground and drinking water must be monitored urgently, especially in Baghdad where the risk to human health is the greatest.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The rationale for bombing chemical weapon and biological weapon establishments was that the intense fire that ensured would destroy the contents within the establishments. I have always thought that to be an extremely dangerous rationale. There was no guarantee that that would happen.

There is no way in which we can monitor the fall-out. The experience of Halabja tells us that fall-out can continue for quite a long time after the event.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is one of the areas in which the evaluation of the consequences of military activity was never properly undertaken.
That leads me to the political conclusion, which I want to reach in a way that will give support to the motion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The Government have given £1 million to the International Maritime Organisation and three oil skimming vessels to the Government of Bahrain. I congratulate them on doing that, but that response was inadequate and belated. When I saw the European Environment Commissioner in Brussels before Christmas I told him of my concern that European governments and the European Community had not considered formally how it might anticipate what might happen to the environment in the middle east. I fear that we did not anticipate what might happen.
On 6 February, the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote a letter entitled
Oil spills in the Gulf
to all hon. Members. In it he said:
It is impossible to anticipate or prevent all acts of this kind.
Of course it is impossible to anticipate or prevent all—I stress all—such acts. It may have been impossible to prevent Saddam Hussein spilling the oil. However, it was not impossible to anticipate his doing that, but the international community did not anticipate or prepare for that eventuality.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government's contribution to the International Maritime Organisation's international trust fund of £1 million was belated. How can it be belated if we were the first country to make a contribution? It is impossible to get much further up the pecking order than that.

Mr. Hughes: My point is that the Government's response to the possible environmental situation in the middle east was months late. Nothing happened until the oil was spilt and fires occured. Hardly any work had been carried out before.

Mr. Arnold: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. No work was carried out. If he can prove that work occurred, I should be interested to hear the evidence. We reacted after the event when we should have reacted before. I should be happy to let the hon. Gentleman intervene if he can provide the House with evidence that this country reacted and was prepared.

Mr. Arnold: I was responding to the specific point about the IMO and the fact that Britain made the first contribution to the fund.

Mr. Hughes: Our reaction to the environmental catastrophe in the middle east was belated because that catastrophe could and should have been anticipated. We failed in that respect.

Mr. Dalyell: It must also say something about Parliament when, in debates following the Consolidated Fund Bill, hon. Members plead with the Government to


act. It is not a matter of hindsight. The matter was foreseeable and foreseen, predictable and predicted. To that extent, a certain amount of recrimination is justified.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree. The call for the world to be prepared for the consequences of the political decisions taken last year did not simply come from this House.
There are billions of pounds worth of contracts now up for grabs in the middle east. I do not know how many of them are for environmental improvements. This country leads the world in marine and terrestrial pollution technology. We have the best qualified people to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the damage in the middle east. Such a course was proposed by the global environment research centre at Imperial colleage, and I invite the Minister to agree that we should make such an offer to provide those people.
When the Secretary of State for the Environment meets Environment Ministers in the Environment Council next week, I suggest that he proposes that such an initiative should be set up, which perhaps Britain could offer to lead, to collaborate on behalf of the European Community with the relevant states in the Gulf and carry out that environmental impact assessment. He should suggest to his European Community partners that in each Community country and in the Community as a whole we should set up a liaison body with the Governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere including, if possible, Iraq to facilitate the necessary environmental work. If the City-Kuwait group could be set up in this country to facilitate contracts for rebuilding the physical environment of the middle east, for heaven's sake we should be able to set up a similar body to provide money for the environmental reconstruction of the area.
We can of course use the IMO as a clearing house for anti-pollution advice and for environmental rescue measures. However, we should do more than that. More money is needed and I am not alone in making that statement. It is supported by the world conservation centre, an arm of the United Nations Environmental Programme, which has stated:
Every effort is being made …. however lack of available funds, shortage of staff and lack of equipment is limiting progress.
We must all be aware that Kuwait is effectively starting
absolutely from scratch.
I also want to repeat a point that I put to the Secretary of State during the war in the Gulf—a point that he was courteous enough to say he would consider. We should stop being reactive and start being pro-active. We should learn from the lesson of our failure to have in place an agency that could be more effective on the environmental issues.
The United Nations Environmental Programme should be strengthened to become the United Nations environmental protection agency. It should, by a further Geneva convention, have the same protection, responsibility and authority as the Red Cross or the Red Crescent. It should be able to enter areas of conflict to protect the environment, just as others go in to protect the injured and the ill. If there has been a sea change in the Conservative party's attitude to Europe, there is an opportunity next week for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make that change clear with his partners in respect of this most important issue on the environmental agenda. Unless we react coherently and immediately, we risk famine as

marine and terrestrial food stocks diminish in the middle east. The refugee crisis and the human suffering will be worse.
There should be no argument about the matter. Only when we have acted in such a way shall we be able to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West; only when we have responded to and dealt with the environmental catastrophe shall we be able to judge whether Operation Desert Storm was a success. If we do not follow the military action with environmental rescue, that operation may be a very costly failure.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The motion moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been helpful. I hope that this debate will have the consequences requested by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), although I do not suppose that that can be said about every debate in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow and I are involved.
Action on the European level is one of the ways in which we can achieve an international grouping. I am sure that the House would agree that such a grouping is necessary. I am touched by the fact that I have a copy of a similar proposal from a committee of experts on road safety led by Mr. Christian Gerondeau and other European experts. This proposal suggests how to reduce the number of road casualties. It is of interest because in the United States and the European Community combined over the next five years we will kill 500,000 people on our roads.
In parenthesis, perhaps I should draw a contrast between the human costs of war and the toll on our roads. During the Falklands conflict in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow was interested, 255 British service men were killed. Over those same weeks, 311 British motor cyclists died. One group received a memorial, but the others did not. In the year before I went to serve in Northern Ireland as a junior Minister, 183 people there were killed on the roads and 63 people lost their lives as a result of bombs and bullets.
If one could wish away war or the loss of life on roads, one would wish away war because it does more than cause loss of life and change to the environment and in this case, sadly, to the ecology. It is also an obstacle to what people in the Catholic Church call the preferential option for the poor, which is that when one has a choice of making life easier for the rich or making it easier for the poor there is an obligation to help those who are worse off. War is an obstacle to prosperity and, by definition, it is the opposite of peace. There will not be justice or development while there is war.
The European Community has taken a useful initiative aimed at reducing road casualties, like the 5 million ecu going towards a similar approach to deal with the environment. It will also be useful. In part, they will be useful because they can bring together the pathfinders and the scouts and enable them to put on the pressure to ensure that we overcome what was described in a recent article in The Financial Times as the biggest plague on this earth. That is AIGS—apathy, ignorance, greed and stupidity.
It is most important that ignorance is overcome, and for that reason I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. As well as being able to answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and


those that will no doubt be asked by subsequent speakers, he will be able to tell us how to build on what has been done. It is good to know that Britain has been leading the way within bodies such as the International Maritime Organisation. That does not deal with the query about whether our help was early enough or whether more could have been done by, for example, using booms. These details do not matter as much as raising the awareness of the opportunity to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap. That must be what was underlying the interest shown by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
A long time ago, under a previous Government, the hon. Gentleman and I used to meet occasionally to play tennis. We did not quite get to the point of playing without a net in the way that we did a week or so ago after an intervention of mine. Since my last, somewhat truncated, discussion with him, I have been to El Salvador to observe the elections and to help the country to establish an electoral system. That in turn will help to end the civil war.
El Salvador may not have the ecological problems that have been thrown up by the conflict in the Gulf but in a country with a population smaller than that of London, 75,000 people have been killed since I first went there 13 years ago. That murdering went on without being awarded the attention of the House or other bodies. It has been called the country where Catholics kill priests, such as Archishop Oscar Romero, who was once one of the saints of this world, and the six Jesuits and their two household staff, who were taken out and had their brains blasted out on the lawn of the university that they had set up. That was in the best university in central America.
There is evil in people, and that evil needs to be confronted. We could debate how that could be done, but the important thing is to overcome it. There are good people who are trying to cope with it. That often means saying inconvenient things that are sometimes unpopular and may not even be right. If we all kept quiet until we could be convincing because we had evidence to produce, we should never get anywhere and there would be no need to have a Parliament. Every one of the 160 or 170 countries has a Government. There is no problem with that, but the difficulty is being able to tell one's Government that they have got it wrong and that there is an opportunity to get it right or to suggest that the country goes in for some collaborating, risk taking or co-operation.
In issues such as the environment and the ecology, it is clear that what appear to be simple solutions will not work. When the oil was deliberately being poured into the Gulf, booms around the affected area would not have been of any help because that area was not controlled by the coalition forces, although it was later on. Booms would have been helpful in places such as Bahrain or anywhere with a desalination plant. However, that is only a detail and my contribution will not be valid if I concentrate on picking up such points.
However, perhaps I may be allowed to pick up a possible answer to the question that I put to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I asked him about the extra consequences of the localised, partial combustion in a concentrated area, as compared with the more complete combustion of the refined product spread around the

world in our motor cars, in our power stations or our central heating systems. That is the question that the scientists should address.

Mr. Dalyell: The question is about to what extent the soot rises towards the stratosphere. If it goes high, the monsoons could be affected, with terrible consequences for the food chain for millions of people. If it goes low—nobody knows how it will behave—the regional effect would be concentrated and terrible.

Mr. Bottomley: That is the question. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who allowed me to intervene in his speech to put my question. Others may be able to answer it during the debate.
One of the reasons for reading the New Scientist over the years has been the hon. Gentleman's column. If more people were aware of that column, more people would be willing to hear his unasked-for guidance so that he would have more opportunity for getting allies. He does not need help in getting attention for his views. I had the misfortune, or the fortune, when the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) when he was a Minister at the Foreign Office after the tragedies in the south Atlantic, of hearing him.
It is not for me, as a junior Member of Parliament, to give the hon. Member for Linlithgow too much gratuitous advice on how to create coalitions and alliances. However, if we more often heard from him speeches that we could support, we would achieve more together than we would by making personal and partisan remarks. Sometimes, those remarks are provoked, but we should not give in to such provocation because there are better ways and higher levels of debate. We could not be criticised as being the members of the awkward squad.
One of my pastimes is buying books written and printed in the middle and late 1930s. It is interesting to read what people were saying in Germany and this country and to see why we allowed ourselves to be treated in the way shown in the Low cartoon of 1936. It showed the League of Nations cowering in the corner away from one, aggressive looking man—Hitler.
The issue that is not at stake in today's debate, but underlines our consideration of the subject, is whether it would have been possible to persuade Saddam Hussein not to invade Kuwait. Although Saddam Hussein has been involved in other activities before that, in Iran, with the Kurds and with the majority of his population, who have never had much opportunity for a say in the political direction of their country, the war started on 2 August with the invasion of Kuwait. We shall never know whether it would have been possible to persuade him to live up to his promise not to invade. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) went to see Saddam Hussein in the autumn of last year. He could not persuade Saddam to get out of Kuwait. Sadly, that argument did not work, but could we have achieved its purpose in other ways?
Having prevented Saddam Hussein from moving on to take Saudi Arabia after Kuwait and, presumably, moving on to his way of resolving the Palestinian issue—with all that that means for the Israelis' fears about their future—would it have been possible to stop a third world war starting? I believe that there was no prospect of stopping Saddam Hussein's aggression, other than joining the war which he started. I say that with no pleasure.
On Saturday, I was in a village in El Salvador, where I talked to people about their elections. I was there when small arms fire broke out. That reminds me of the newspaper headline, "Small earthquake in Peru—no one hurt." No one was hurt in those 15 minutes at Los Ranchos, near Chalatanango. We crouched on a site near where mortars had fallen two or three days before. The next day, I was with a doctor near another place where a mortar had fallen. The mortars in El Salvador had no more military purpose than the Scuds that were sent to Tel Aviv and Riyadh.
It is frightening to be under fire. It is ghastly for those who have to go through it. It is to be avoided if possible. With Saddam Hussein, it was not possible. I hope that we can now clear up the consequences of his actions. I hope that it is possible for Iraq to reach the stage of choosing its own Government and that there are not the massacres in Iraq, as people fight for political control, that, sadly, have occurred in El Salvador and many other countries. Most hon. Members present are the type of people who are involved in Amnesty International, trying to stop individuals being persecuted, or in aid organisations. There is an hon. Member here who served with Voluntary Service Overseas and one who was a director of a charity involved in such work. I spent six years as a trustee of Christian Aid. None of us is under any illusion about the amount of misery and hardship faced by people because they have not had a chance to have a political system that delivers peace, prosperity and justice.
This is a never-ending quest. I suspect that in 10 or 20 years' time we shall have the same debates about the same problems. We cannot turn our back on what is happening. Every one of us has a responsibility to do as much as any other person. The hon. Member for Linlithgow can be given credit for having done more than any of us for the environment and the ecology.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In opening what I hope will be a brief contribution, I put on record my warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyel1) for choosing this subject for debate and for his consistent work on the environment in the middle east and the potential catastrophe that a war there would cause. My hon. Friend outlined the matter well in an Adjournment debate before Christmas, detailing the consequences for the environment in the region of oil spillages, burning oil wells and chemical and biological warfare during a conflict. My hon. Friend deserves full credit for doing that.
My hon. Friend has stood out on many issues at many times, often from a lonely position. It is a credit to him that he stood up to much of the nonsense said about him and that he pointed out the truth of many issues, such as that of the Belgrano and what is happening now. I remember standing beside him in Trafalgar square when he said that the words "I told you so" were not very becoming to politicians. In this case, my hon. Friend has a right to use those words. He predicted what would happen if there was a war in the Gulf. He should be applauded, respected and listened to for doing that.
In considering the history of the region and the consequences of the war, we should cast our mind over history, including its more recent history. Only three years ago, the problem of the Kurdish people in northern Iraq

was brought to the world's headlines when chemical weapons were used against them in the village of Halabja. That was not the first time that chemical weapons were used against the Kurdish people by Iraq's first army and it was not the last.
Several of us raised protests in the House. The Government protested and raised the issue of chemical weapons at a conference held in Paris in September 1988, but they did not take action on Britain's relationships with Iraq. I clearly recall a delegation of which I was part, with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), the then general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Meg Beresford, members of the National Peace Council and several Kurdish people, which went to the Foreign Office to ask exactly what the Government's policy was. We strongly pointed out the carnage that was occurring in Halabja through the use of chemical weapons, the destruction of Kurdish villages in the north of Iraq, and the forcible movement of Kurdish people to the south of Iraq.
To be fair to the Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), he agreed with us about the horror of the use of chemical and biological weapons and said that they were illegal under the terms of the 1925 Geneva protocol. He did not agree that the British Government should stop supplying trade and credits to Iraq. We believed that the British Government should stop subsidising trade with Iraq and should stop allowing other countries to export weapons to Iraq. There was a ban on the export of weapons from this country, but the funding of trade with Iraq gave that country hard currency with which it could buy weapons elsewhere.
I have a plan, which was produced in the Bangkok Post early in February and which was recently sent to me, showing that weapons came from the USSR, France, China, the United States, West Germany, Brazil, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Jordan, Spain, Egypt, South Africa, Switzerland, Libya, Austria, Saudia Arabia, Romania and Kuwait, which sold Iraq 50 tanks. Iran has been selling Iraq weapons since the end of the war between those countries. We should think carefully about relationships and the trade between countries. The problems in Iraq are a consequence of those relationships.
The environmental problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred are not new—there have been such problems in Iran and Iraq for a long time, although they are much worse now because of the war. In much of the reporting of and discussions about the war and its consequences, people have deliberately forgotten the role played in modern civilisation by the Mesopotamia valley. In many ways, it is the cradle of civilisation. The Tigris and the Euphrates have brought much learning and much discovery to the world. They brought agriculture to the world when there was no proper agricultural system in this country. There were universities in Baghdad long before they existed in this country. Iraq is a place of enormous civilisation and much learning, but much of that was ignored during the war because it did not fit in with the image presented when some people wanted to go to war against that so-called dangerous regional power.
More recently, there have been environmental problems in the area. There have been endless discussions and disputes about the use of water from the Tigris and Euphrates and about who draws off water at certain places. During September, when I was in eastern Turkey, I travelled to Diyarbakir and down to Cizre, on the


frontier with Iraq. I looked at the problems of water supply and at the over-irrigation that occurs in certain parts of south-east Turkey and northern Iraq. The drawing off of too much water leads to problems further down. There will be continual conflict on environmental matters in the region until the problem of water supplies and the sharing of those supplies is resolved. Future wars in the region could be about water, as this war was, I believe, about oil.
We must also recognise that there is fundamental political instability in the region. It stems from the attitude taken at the end of the first world war, at the time of the Versailles conference and the treaty that followed it. The treaty envisaged the right to self-determination for the peoples in the region. I believe that it acknowledged implicitly the rights of the Armenian, Kurdish and Palestinian people to have their own states. Those wishes were denied because of the creation in 1922 of modern Turkey and its frontiers and because of the British operation of the Palestinian mandate. They were denied partly because of British and French political activity in the area and because of the drawing of the modern frontiers. I believe that those frontiers will be a cause of future instability.
We should also remember that the Royal Air Force took part in the bombardment of Kurdish villages in 1922 and used chemical weapons to bomb Kurdish people who were fighting for their liberation in 1922 in northern Iraq. That is not very long ago in the mind of a historian or in the popular memory of the people of Kurdistan, who feel bitter about what the RAF did in 1922 and about the damage caused to their community and their environment. We must recall those issues in our discussions about the war.
I opposed the war, and I continue to do so, because I believe that it was the wrong way to solve the conflict. I regret the consequences that we are now seeing—the loss of life of American and British soldiers, of conscripted soldiers in Iraq, of the Republican Guard and of hundreds of civilians in towns and villages all over Iraq. The latest figure of the total number of dead in Iraq is likely to be more than 140,000. The idea that we should hold a victory parade in the near future is distasteful.
War is a disaster in terms of costs, for the environment, for the people of the region and for the region's political systems. The environmental disaster was predictable. Oil slicks at sea caused by the bombardment of tankers and the deliberate setting off of oil well sluices by Iraqi forces have caused terrible environmental carnage throughout the Gulf, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said. The slicks will destroy sea algae, sea mammals, fish and the ability of sea plants to produce oxygen, which will result in the deoxidation of the sea. It is possible that the sea, or at least a part of it, will be dead.
The burning of the oil wells, which is likely to continue for years, will blot out much of the sun. That will damage the ability of Kuwait—and especially that of southern Iraq—to produce the necessary food. Clearly, that will cause long-term problems. There are already health problems in Kuwait, in Basra, in Baghdad and in other cities in the area. Any community that relies on a centralised water supply and sewage disposal system is vulnerable to air attack. That must have been known when the American

and British air forces carried out their bombardments. The destruction of the sewage facilities and of the water system will quickly lead—if it has not already done so—to the growth of cholera and other diseases in the area.
We are dealing with a complete disaster, but our ability to cope with it and to get relief and aid to Iraq and Kuwait is clearly hampered by the lack of a political settlement. I am worried that the political complexion of the area is being decided by the United States on the basis of its own interests rather than according to the needs of the people of the area. Until there is a political solution and the Kurdish and the Palestinian peoples have a right to self-determination, the political conflict will continue.
The environmental destruction will continue as the lack of resources in the area means that oil well fires are not extinguished, water supplies restored and sewage disposal systems repaired. There should be a massive deployment of resources to resolve those problems. From August, however, there was such a massive deployment of resources to the region. To date the conflict has cost Britain £3 billion—it will cost the United States much more. I accept that Kuwait has offered to pay towards the cost, but, in that sense, it all becomes mercenary. Such expenditure is distasteful when millions of people face starvation in Africa. Similar resources have not been deployed to save them.
The middle east is facing an environmental disaster, but countries have been unwilling to offer adequate resources to stem the flow of oil and to put out the fires. There must be a commitment to protect that environment.
People in the poorer countries witness the determination of the west to get involved in military conflicts and to gain commercial advantage from them. That advantage is being gained at this moment in the city where the reconstruction contracts for Kuwait are being shelled out. The victims of Bhopal have been ignored. The landless people of Brazil believe that they have been thrown out of the Amazon rain forest because of the logging operations of multinational corporations. Those people believe that the only thing in which the western industrialised countries is concerned is self-interest and looking after their own political power.
I hope that this debate will draw attention to the deep concern throughout the country that the environmental consequences of the Gulf war will be horrific, not just for the immediate area, its people and wildlife, but for the rest of the world. If the oil-induced cloud continues, the effect on rainfall throughout the region will be considerable—it will have a similar effect on the Indian sub-continent.
Once one starts upsetting a climatic system, the effects know no boundaries. I hope that the Minister will demonstrate a true commitment on the part of the British Government to get resources into the region to resolve some of the environmental disasters we are now witnessing.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for initiating the debate. I describe the hon. Gentleman as such advisedly. He has many obsessions, most of which I do not share, but I share his obsession for the tropical rain forests of Latin America and with the ecological consequences of the Gulf war. However, sometimes the


hon. Gentleman seems to be an outrider for the Apocalypse. We must put the problems of the Gulf in context and then we must tackle them.
The World Conservation Monitoring Centre has undertaken a useful assessment of the situation in the Gulf. In its briefing paper, prepared a few days ago, it states:
The smoke cloud is relatively low with a ceiling of 10–15,000 ft. This is not high enough to affect stratospheric climate circulation, so predictions of widescale disruptions of rainfall and monsoon patterns are exaggerated … Many of the wells in the Saudi/Kuwait Neutral Zone require pumping to bring the oil to the surface".
It says that the fires that are now disfiguring the middle east will soon die out through lack of fuel. It also states that the soot that has been thrown up by those massive fires is harmless, but "black rain frightens people."
We must assess the problems that we face and we can and must tackle them. It is worth recalling the cause of the ecological disaster in the Gulf. It can be summed up in two words, Saddam Hussein. That brutal and callous President of Iraq is still at large. He caused the ecological disaster because of the way in which he went about his business. We should have known that man for what he was, as he showed no compassion for human life when he gassed the Kurdish people. However, he understands international media and opinion and he knows that we care about the environment. He let loose his dreadful action because he knows that we care about the birds, turtles, dugongs and fish to be found in the Gulf region and he hit us where it hurts.
We must consider, first, the problem of the oil slick caused by Saddam Hussein on Friday 26 January when Iraqi troops deliberately released 300,000 tonnes of oil into the Arabian Gulf in an attempt to contaminate Saudi Arabia's desalination plants and hinder the allied war effort. The damage has been extensive. His action created an oil slick 80 miles long and 14 miles wide—one of the largest ever known. The oil came from the Iraqi shelling of Khafji oil tanks, the deliberate release of oil from tankers and sea terminals at Al Ahmadi and Mina al Bakr, and from the offshore platforms in Iraq and Kuwait, both under his control at that time. Secondly, in the final week of Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait, he set alight the Kuwaiti oil fields and caused 650 separate fires.
Clearly, we must understand the problem and tackle it. In the case of the oil slick, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre boiled the matter down to facing and coping with the scale of the problem. It tells us:
The slick along the Saudi coast has shown virtually no movement for the last two weeks. It is now packed into Musallamiyah Bay, held by booms and sand barriers to the south of Abu 'Ali—it is present as 'hundreds of acres of solid oil, 5–6 inches deep.".
We must tackle that problem and the problem of the other oil slicks and patches, although those are on a much smaller scale.
The centre's brief on the ecological problems and the oil clean-up is specific about the scale of the problem and what must be done. Its report that very little co-ordinated action is being taken to clean up the area is worrying. It says:
Every effort is being made by MEPA and volunteers to rescue and clean birds of oil and to clean oil from shores. However lack of available funds, shortage of staff and lack of equipment is limiting the progress. Meanwhile, little is being done other than putting out booms around key industrial sites

and desalination plants. Only some 40–50,000 barrels have been recovered. The problem is lack of equipment and lack of cash.
Time and again, it returns to lack of resources. I welcome the International Maritime Organisation's newly established international trust fund to clean up the Gulf.
The House can take pride from the fact that Britain made the first donation of £1 million. We still need instant donations from the undamaged Gulf states—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the Emirates—which are most concerned with the current problems. Britain has not been backward in coming forward, not only with cash but with technical support. The Department of the Environment has sent pollution control and ecological experts to help in the Gulf. The Government have ordered three oil recovery skimmers, worth £300,000, to be sent to Bahrain, and 90 tonnes of anti-pollution equipment—mostly booms—from industrial stocks held in Britain were flown out at the end of January when the scale of the problem was identified.
We can also take pride from the work of our Meteorological Office, which has adapted its computer models to give the best possible predictions of the likely behaviour of the oil slick. It is also analysing the impact of the oil fires' smoke clouds. Will my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department find ways of assisting the Meterological Office with the practicalities to enable it to observe those filthy clouds? It needs to take measurements on this unprecedented phenomenon.
The Department of Trade and Industry should also be commended for the work that it has done. It has got its act together and produced an admirable publication "Restructuring Kuwait", which is subtitled:
Proposed United Kingdom contribution to the reconstruction of Kuwait.
I was glad that one section of the publication is devoted to environmental protection and United Kingdom companies' experience and involvement in Kuwait and the Gulf.
The document states:
UK companies have experience in toxic/flammable gases, clean-up of oil and chemical spills, assessing the stability of sites and structures, determination and monitoring of ecological damage, effluent and groundwater pollution problems, water system sterilisation and requirements for the general decontamination of the site and those parts of the installations that can be salvaged or retained. Effective product management and control are essential factors in the successful execution of these tasks. UK companies with specialists in these fields are ready to respond to Kuwait's needs.
The report gives details of the companies that can help, including the British Oil Spill Control Association, a trade organisation which represents a number of United Kingdom companies and deals with all aspects of marine and industrial pollution. Such organisations should be given every opportunity to get cracking with the job that needs to be done.
Another major problem involves the fires, too many of which still rage out of control. The oil industry is already getting to work on that problem. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has produced a useful briefing note on the subject, which states:
the oil industry has had much experience in extinguishing fires at well heads using explosives to blow out the fire, after which the well head can be sealed.
It describes how, in more complex cases, the technology in the oil industry exists—through drilling, blocking and other means—to control those dreadful fires.
The Gulf crisis produced some benefits. Out of that tragedy may well have come a new world order. For the first time ever, the five permanent members of the Security Council stood together, despite the stresses and strains of the crisis. No fewer than 30 nations sent armed forces contingents. They were sent from the United States, the old Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, west and east Europe, including Czechoslovakia and Hungary. They were sent from 11 Muslim countries and even from Latin America and black Africa. There were small but significant contingents from Argentina and Niger.
The United Nations has come into its own. It won the war and now it must win the peace—but with that peace, we must link the world environment. Signs are emerging that the same co-ordinated effort towards achieving that peace is not being achieved in coping with environmental tasks. I urge the Government to push for a co-ordinated initiative to be taken, perhaps through the United Nations, rather than to leave this serious problem to individual Gulf states, individual oil companies and individual under-resourced environmental organisations.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If, after the debate, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) reads the United Nations charter, he may feel that that organisation's commitment to seeking to resolve disputes by negotiation, arbitration, peace and other methods could have been sorely damaged by what has taken place in the Gulf.
On the other hand, there are agencies operating under the aegis of the UN, such as UNICEF and the World Health Organisation which are doing valuable work. The position of the UN cannot easily be judged one way or the other by what has happened in the crisis, for sometimes its right hand is trying to undo what its left hand has achieved.
The oil fires alone in the Gulf represent a massive human catastrophe, despite what the hon. Member for Gravesham said to try to alleviate the nature of that catastrophe. The situation is undoubtedly far worse than the disaster at Chernobyl and it might even be judged to be worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Disastrous though those happenings were in terms of numbers of people killed, we must consider the potential that is beginning to flow from the crisis in the Gulf in terms of climatic conditions and the lives of people in the third world. We must be very concerned indeed if we are facing something that disastrous.
Hon. Members will have received copies of New Arabia, which have been sent out by the Kuwaitis. It includes an article entitled "Fires worse than nightmares" which deals with some of the points referred to in the debate. The nightmare that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) predicted has probably, in the event, turned out to be even worse than that which he painted today. It is more disastrous and more oil fires are occurring, though perhaps my hon. Friend was deliberately being modest about such matters to give impact to the points that he made.

Mr. Dalyell: I admit freely that I was wrong on two points. There was talk of 346 deep mined oil wells. I

thought that more than 20 would ignite—that number would have been bad enough—because of the absence of oxygen. I was profoundly wrong about that. Secondly, although we predicted the obliteration of Kuwait, we said that there would also be effects in Iraq, Iran, the Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain. It did not occur to us that the black acid rain would extend as far as Turkey.

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend makes a valuable intervention which reveals the extent of the danger. The best scientific predictions did not reveal the depth of the problem that was to emerge.
New Arabia contains a diagram illustrating many of the issues that hon. Members have raised. Rather than discuss the detail of the article, I will cite the headings to give a flavour of the depth of the problem. The article refers to dramatic falls in temperature that can occur because of the sun being blotted out for long periods; the loss of wildlife; the spread of smoke; the loss of marine life, disease through contamination; soil and water contamination; and massive air pollution. We must not be complacent about those problems.
There are other massive problems. For example, the activities of the tanks on both sides and the general movement of the armies has resulted in small stones and pebbles being dislodged from desert areas. Scientists are claiming that because of that movement, the sands of the desert are unlikely to be contained in winds as readily as they have been in the past. That puts villages, encampments, airstrips, townships and other places in danger, which may be minor when compared with other considerations, but could have serious effects in the future.
The task of dealing with the oil slick is immense. A whole host of problems about how it is to be tackled still remain. There might be the possibility of dropping incendiaries on certain slicks, though the experience of the Torrey Canyon suggests that that is not the most viable method. There are also possibilities of chemical dispersants, booms and skimmers. As the hon. Member for Gravesham said, they are vessels that can begin to take the oil away if the area can be contained. There is also the possibility of using bacteria to break down the oil slicks and to make them more easily tackled.
The problems of disease and refugees have already been stressed. Half the tonnage that was dropped in the European theatre during the second world war was dropped on Iraq in 39 nights of bombing. Although we are talking about a different technology, the consequences are horrendous. We do not yet know the depths of what occurred, but we do know that precision bombing went disastrously wrong at Al Ameriah. As has been said, a 60-mile column of conscripts and Kuwaitis were fleeing along the road from Basra.
We do not yet know all that much about what happened in Basra. We are used to having reports from Baghdad and know a great deal about the Rashid hotel and the area around it, which is not typical of Baghdad, although parts of Baghdad have been built up by Saddam Hussein into a prestige area, with similar complexes. Basra has suffered probably far more than anywhere else. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow described what occurred in Baghdad and Kuwait. Basra's power supply, water supply, health and emergency services and sewerage systems have been dramatically damaged, causing serious


problems, including typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and polio. Those diseases are occurring in Basra as well as in Baghdad.
Basra is a port. It has massive dock facilities, large marshalling yards, a railway complex, an airport and oil installations. It was hit hard. We have had various reports from Basra and some information about what the bombings sounded like from Iran. Basra was hit by B52 carpet bombs and by precision bombing, which may have saved lives in certain circumstances—where it did not go wrong—and which was resorted to in areas other than Basra. There were no journalists or television cameras present to tell us the depths of what happened in Basra.
In the Easter Adjournment debate yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) made a moving speech about the situation in Iraq. My hon. Friend quoted two faxed communications that had been received from Iran and which originally emerged from Basra. One was an appeal from the people of Basra, and it stated:
We are fighting for all Iraqis and for all humanity everywhere. We are in full control of Basra, but your families, children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers from Basra—they are in great need for food and medicines."—[Official Report, 14 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 1140.]
Humanitarian relief in Basra is being initiated on a small scale under United Nations resolution 666, which is about the supply of foodstuffs and medical supplies, initially in connection with sanctions, but it has been reinforced by resolution 678, which was interpreted as being about war, but is also linked with the consequences of the war. That resolution should apply to Baghdad, Kuwait, Basra and other areas.

Mr. Dalyell: It is relevant to recall the moving reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to the situation in Coventry in the 1940s, and a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party in the 1940s, which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and I attended. Furthermore, it is relevant to recall the impression that was left by people such as Alderman George Hodgkinson of Coventry and what happened during the reconstruction of Coventry after the horror that it endured. I suspect that the horror in Basra was many times worse.

Mr. Barnes: We do not know the number of people who have been killed in Iraq. Reference has been made to 140,000 people, but some will say that a quarter of a million people were killed. Let us say that 180,000 people were killed. That figure represents 1 per cent. of the population of Iraq. Most hon. Members' constituencies contain about 100,000 people, so we are talking about 1,000 deaths, on average, within a constituency. Some areas were barely touched, but Basra must have suffered tremendously.
I have an interest in Basra. A long time ago, I undertook my national service there in 1955–56. Therefore, I have the greatest affinity not only with RAF forces there but with the people with whom I worked. People often worked in abysmal circumstances. It was not unusual to see people working in the marshalling area carrying on their backs goods which no human being should have been asked to carry. That was some time ago and technology there has not advanced much, but I suspect that Iraq has advanced considerably in certain matters to do with prestige, military power and the authority of the Baath

party and Saddam Hussein. Masses of people still live in mud huts and reed huts, and in the best of times, there are limited electricity, water and sewerage facilities. People in such conditions may have been affected by the bombing.
It is important to learn lessons from the past. We must ensure that we get full information. In such a debate it is possible to seek common ground between those who supported the war and those, such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who strongly opposed it and now believe that subsequent events justified our opposition. Nevertheless the question of what we should do remains.
Earlier Tory Members mentioned what the British Government were doing and I, too, shall quote from the Conservative research department brief. It provides the key points to stress in showing what the British Government are doing. We need to consider whether its list of four points is adequate, given the nature of this disaster. The brief states:
The British have responded quickly to the environmental problems caused by the Gulf War.
It then gives the four key points:
Britain was the first country to respond to the International Marine Organisation's appeal for a £1 million donation.
The Department of the Environment has sent pollution control and ecological experts to help in the Gulf.
The Government has ordered 3 oil recovery skimmers worth £300,000 which will be sent to Bahrain.
90 tonnes of anti-pollution equipment—mostly booms—from industry stocks held in Britain were flown out to the Gulf on the 28th, 29th and 30th January.
All those items are welcome and I imagine that the list could be longer as those are given as the "Key Points". The Conservative research department has presented those points to save the Government from criticism during the debate, so that they can carry their corner. Those measures are inadequate to meet the scale of the tragedy. They are insignificant compared with the resources that went into the war effort. The consequences of the war are likely to be horrendous.
War is the greatest factor in social change, especially in this century of total war. The greatest changes to this country have not occurred under Thatcherism or even under the Attlee Government. They were set in motion by and occurred during the first and second world wars. They had tremendous consequences not only for this country, but for the world. This war will have the same effect on the Gulf area. The consequences will mainly be disastrous and many of them have already been mentioned.
We, in common with others, may see the need and may be able to take action to improve the position in the middle east. There are the strongest humanitarian reasons, as well as political reasons, for mass assistance. The political reasons include the need to make links with Arabs generally, so that they feel that the rest of the world is helping them overcome their problems. Many issues, such as the Palestinian question, can be considered, but that may go wide of the provisions in the motion.
Certainly there should be the fullest possible support for United Nations resolution 666. We bombed Saddam Hussein in an attempt to make him follow United Nations resolutions, yet resolution 666 provided that the United Nations and its members in certain circumstances should give him aid. The resolution had relatively little to do with Saddam Hussein. It had to do with us and the rest of our world in response to the situation. We should act as quickly as possible to provide the money and the resources


that are needed, using the agencies of the World Health Organisation and UNICEF. They could also be provided directly or through links with Europe.
In order to play as full a role as possible in providing assistance, we need to understand the scale of the tragedy. We need as much information as possible from Iraq about what actually occurred, because a full and honest story must be presented and journalists and others must be given the opportunity to do that. The more that Saddam Hussein is allowed to maintain his authority over rebel Kurd and Shi'ite forces the less likely is it that we will be able to obtain information about what he is involved in.
People must fully realise what we were doing and what we were generally supporting. When that is quickly understood we can create pressures in society for humanitarian resources.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate. I gather that the Government Chief Whip described the hon. Gentleman's luck as black magic. The hon. Gentleman has extraordinary luck in securing Adjournment debates and debates such as this one, and he often does so at precisely the time that suits him. I make those points out of jealousy.
As usual, most of what the hon. Member for Linlithgow said was most impressive. I had the good fortune to serve until Thursday on the Committee examining the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. In that Committee the hon. Gentleman displayed the enormous array of his interests, talents and expertise on environmental matters. He also gave us the benefit of his specific knowledge on Scottish matters, and in this debate he has shown the same flair in speaking about the Gulf and its wildlife and flora and fauna. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that. My only criticism is of his rather endearing habit of reading out almost every letter that he receives to make sure that they get into the record. However, such a habit is valuable.

Mr. Dalyell: If I were to read out all the letters that I receive no hon. Member would get a chance to participate in the debate.

Mr. Hughes: I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his restraint in reading only a few of the letters.
One general criticism is that the hon. Gentleman has got himself into the position of believing that he was the only one warning about these things at the time and that his warnings should have been a brake upon action by the allied powers. If we allowed the possibility of environmental pollution and destruction to be the paramount argument against military action, there would never be such action. So whatever Saddam Hussein decided he would do—whatever countries he decided that he wanted to invade, whatever control of the area's oil supply and economy, or of the world's economy, he wanted to take for himself—we should take no military action to stop him because of the possibility or likelihood of environmental damage. That is not a view that I can share.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who drew attention to what Saddam Hussein threatened and then said that we should not take military action to deal with him were, in effect, arguing that we should give in to blackmail? Saddam Hussein was proving that he was a psychopathic, evil and blackmailing character. If we had said that we would give way to him, it would have encouraged him to make even worse threats later and to invade other countries. It was right that we should put an end to a particularly evil man's attempts to blackmail civilisation.

Mr. Hughes: I genuinely respect the sincerity and consistency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on these matters. I have tried to express my criticism in only one context in as mild a way as I can. I have other things to say about some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on a matter of fact. The warnings did not appear in my own name. I was careful to go on and on asking whether there had been some response to the King of Jordan's figures, which came from Dr. Abdullah Toucan. They were produced not on the basis of work carried out at the Amman Scientific institute, although I believe that that institute is a serious place, but at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was the MIT's findings that I thought deserved a response.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that. I recall the hon. Gentleman advancing that argument. One of the problems with the King of Jordan was that he caused himself to be boxed in to a position in which anything that he said was liable to be sidelined. I am not sure whether it was prudent or logical in the early days of the war for us to sideline King Hussein in the way that both the British Government and the Government of the United States did. The King of Jordan was making claims in many areas that were either irresponsible or unfounded and, therefore, that which he said that had some foundation was liable to be treated in the same way as those claims.
We have not yet explored the issue of war crimes. When we talk about war crimes, we talk normally about the use of unconventional weapons, grave breaches of the Geneva convention, wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, or wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. In those areas of grave breaches that are set out in the four Geneva conventions of 1949 there is reference to
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
There is reference also to
plunder of public or private property and wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Part of the war crimes for which Saddam Hussein was responsible was the destruction of the environment. Britain has not committed war crimes, but anyone who listened to some of the speeches of Labour Members who supported the hon. Member for Linlithgow would have thought that the allies, and especially the British Government, had committed such crimes. The war crimes were carried out deliberately by Saddam Hussein. One of the greatest and perhaps most enduring of those war crimes has been the destruction of the environment described today by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We must not forget what Saddam Hussein has done.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow made the only speech from the Opposition Benches for which I have any time. The speeches of other Labour Members were contemptible. They tried to blame the destruction of the environment and loss of life on the coalition forces. I cannot accept that. To be fair, such a view would not be accepted on the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what some of us have beeen arguing. Perhaps I can draw an analogy in the form of a madman or mad organisation conducting a hijack. We have to decide how to respond to the situation. Do we send in troops with hand grenades, or do we try to engage in a much more sophisticated response m an attempt to release the hostages? That is the difference between us in relation to the response. There was no support for the madman engaged in the activities that we have heard described today. He is an evil, totalitarian madman. What did we expect him to do when we responded as we did?

Mr. Hughes: That is not a good analogy. Other methods to stop what eventually happened were pursued. We tried sanctions and appeals to Saddam Hussein. Right hon. and hon. Members went to Bahdad to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. I had the honour to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) at the time and I know how hard he tried to persuade Saddam Hussein not to do what he did.
In the end, those methods did not work. Virtually the whole world, like both sides of this House, concluded that the only way to bring the matter to an end was through military force. To place any of the blame for what happened on the coalition countries that were carrying out the United Nations wishes is wrong. Before the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-West (Mr. Barnes) talks about the United Nations again, I wish that he would read the articles in the charter. He would then understand that what was done in the name of the United Nations was entirely proper.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the events that have unfolded in Kuwait since the successful liberation of that country, the sights that we have seen and the reports of the horrors that took place during the Iraqi invasion and occupation, show that, if anything, it was not a question of our not being patient enough with Saddam Hussein? Rather, we were too patient. We gave him too long and he was able to do worse things than he could have done if we had acted earlier.

Mr. Hughes: I was about to make that point, and it was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). Had we delayed, more people would have been killed.
It is all very well to talk about the destruction of Baghdad and Basra and the effect on the Iraqi people. However, such comments should be coupled with reference to the enormous destruction in Kuwait, the effect on Kuwaiti people and the likely effect of further outrages on Kuwaiti people had the Iraqis been allowed to remain.
I want to consider the environmental consequences of what has happened. I want first to consider the oil. The Kuwait Oil Company's damage assessment shows that approximately 950 wells have been sabotaged, of which 550 are burning. The damage has been severe enough to

destroy safety and flow limiting devices, and in some cases to allow the oil to flow around the casing, increasing it further still. The KOC estimates that between 5 million and 6 million barrels a day are burning.
In addition, oil refineries and storage facilities have been sabotaged, and that could mean the loss of up to 15 million barrels. The big question this raises is for how long the fires will burn. The fires at the oil refineries and storage facilities are mostly out, so the environmental threat comes mostly from the burning wells. Earlier estimates of the time taken to extinguish fires in those wells ranged from a few months to a year. Many regard that as optimistic because of the logistics involved in putting them out, especially the use of large quantities of water. If I were being generous, I would say that that is the one point on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The estimate is that the fires will take between three and five years to put out. To be any more certain than that would be difficult.
The environmental impact of the fires depends on the behaviour of the smoke. If the smoke stays at a low altitude, it will fall out or be washed out locally or regionally. If the smoke reaches an altitude of 10 km or more, it will remain in the atmosphere for much longer. That could have more widespread effects on the climate. Calculations have been made that smoke from individual oil well fires will rise only 1 km or so, although any large fires at refineries could result in smoke that rises much higher. Therefore, it is a little early to know what the long-term environmental impact of that will be.
Our Meteorological Office has been looking in some detail at the global effects of these fires. Carbon dioxide emissions could add about 3 per cent. to the global emissions from other activities in the first year and 1 per cent. in the second. The ozone layer is unlikely to be affected, provided that the majority view that the gases capable of destroying ozone are unlikely to reach the stratosphere in significant quantities is correct.
Earlier analyses examined the possibility that smoke could trigger the climate effects forecast in the nuclear winter, including failure of the Asian monsoon. This is an interesting analogy because of the many predictions made about the Asian monsoon, what has actually happened, and the detailed modelling that has been done. The work done by the Meteorological Office and others claims that the effect on the monsoon would be negligible, and probably much less than the year-to-year variability. Therefore, whatever might happen to the monsoon, that may have nothing to do with the oil fires, or their effect on the monsoon may be relatively small and not one that could be put down simply to that cause.
I shall deal now with sanctions, which have a bearing on the situation on the people inside Iraq. There has been much talk about sanctions on both sides of the House. One point has either not been appreciated or has not been fully explained. It is that sanctions have not at any time, and do not now, prohibit medicines from being taken into Iraq. If children have been denied medicines, it is entirely because the Iraqi Government refuse to allow them to come in. That has to be understood and appreciated.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about sanctions on foodstuffs and medical supplies. The resolutions state that in certain circumstances, when there are serious problems in providing foodstuffs and medical supplies, action can be taken to supply them. A host of


sanctions on air and sea movement obviously affect the ability of people to send foodstuffs and medical supplies to Iraq. Special action must be taken to supply those goods.

Mr. Hughes: If the Iraqi Government had made it clear to the Red Cross that they needed medical supplies, they could have been taken in, and could still be taken in, despite sanctions. At any stage, essential medical supplies could have been taken to Iraq. The fact that the Iraqi people have been denied them is entirely down to the Iraqi Government, and that should not be forgotten.
One of the friends of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East who consistently voted with the hon. Gentleman against the Gulf war suggested on a platform that we shared that we were too soft and that we should not have allowed medical supplies or foodstuffs to go to Iraq. There are different views on this matter.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke about the Palestinians, and some tributes have been paid to his speech. I do not join them. As usual, the hon. Gentleman spoke as though he were the only person who had ever had any experience of visiting Palestinian refugee camps. He implied that the problems of the Palestinians were caused by the war. That is a new twist on the old chestnut that the Palestinians' problems were caused by the Israelis. That historical and factual nonsense must be put down at once.
I visited one Palestinian refugee camp outside Tripoli in Lebanon three times within a week. On the second occasion, the camp was controlled by a different Palestinian faction from the one that controlled it the other times—there had been enormous battles between my visits. On each occasion, bodies lay around and enormous suffering was experienced by the people. Palestinians were causing immense suffering to fellow Palestinians. The suffering of the Palestinians and the fact that their problems have not been solved cannot again be laid at the door of the coalition or Israel; they must be laid at the door of the Arab people in general and the so-called Palestinian leadership.
If the Arab countries around Israel wanted seriously to do something about the appalling living conditions and suffering of the Palestinian people, they would read resolution 242, recognise Israel's borders and give guarantees about their security and ensure that they gave space, help and housing to the Palestinian refugees, even if only temporarily. None of those things has happened. To bring the Palestinians into the debate as the hon. Member for Hillhead did is to do no justice to their cause and is to hide behind the facts.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the invasion of Kuwait was that many thousands of Palestinians lost their jobs? Does he agree that many thousands of Palestinians had to leave Kuwait quickly because of the invasion? Does my hon. Friend remember meeting the mayor of Bethlehem, who said that 5,000 Palestinians from Bethlehem who had been working in Kuwait could no longer do so and that those who had been sending remittancee from Kuwait to Bethlehem suddenly found that, because of the equalisation of the Iraqi and the Kuwaiti dinar, their bank accounts were worthless and those remittances stopped? The Palestinian people were one of the main victims of the invasion of

Kuwait and the folly of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in supporting Saddam Hussein has made peace in the middle east much more difficult.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I and some Opposition Members met the mayor of Bethlehem who expressed those worries. He said that he had a hospital paid for by the Kuwaitis. It was not yet finished, but in the parts that were open the doctors and nurses had been paid for by the Kuwaitis. He wondered who would fund the hospital now. The way in which the Palestinian people—and especially their leadership—welcomed the invasion of Kuwait and cheered when Scud missiles were launched against defenceless Israeli people has put back their cause. The Palestinian issue may be tangential to the debate, but as it has been introduced, it must be recognised that the person who has done most harm to the Palestinian cause is Saddam Hussein. He must bear a terrible responsibility for that.
The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and for Derbyshire, North-East and others said that the Government have done too little. They said that the Government should have acted sooner and that people should have been sent to the Gulf to solve the environmental problems. However, there was a war on, and anyone who has been in an area where bullets, grenades and missiles are flying about knows that it is not easy to do one's job in such circumstances. It would have been impossible for the Government to act sooner. They were the first to give money to the International Maritime Organisation and have taken the problems seriously, which should be welcomed.

Mr. Dalyell: That is an extremely important point. Before anybody can start tackling the oil fires, something must be done about mines and booby traps.

Mr. Hughes: That is a fair point. The criticism was not made by the hon. Gentleman, who has been fair. Anyone who quotes from a Conservative research department document must be making a fair speech.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Well, I did then.

Mr. Hughes: There are exceptions to everything.
The Government should be congratulated on the speed and nature of their response and on the way in which expert help has been offered, not to take over, but to give aid to the people trying to tackle the problems. I congratulate the Government on what they have done. I shall finish where I started—by congratulating the hon. Member for Linlithgow on bringing these matters to our attention once again, and on giving us such a detailed insight into his knowledge. That has been valuable for the House, for the nation and for the region in question.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I agree with the last comment made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). We should all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on what he described as his good fortune in having secured this debate. The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that it was possibly black magic. If my hon. Friend had not won the ballot for the debate, I am sure that his ingenuity, which knows no bounds, would have enabled him to find another suitable occasion to raise these issues at length. As


you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, his persistence is well known and well respected by many hon. Members, as the debate has proved.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign to raise awareness of the difficulties and problems that have arisen as a result of the conflict in the Gulf. He said that he was not the only person to give warnings and advice about what might happen. I must say, however, that his extremely high profile on this issue has meant that a great deal of attention has been paid to the problems. We are grateful to him for choosing this subject for debate and for the information he has given to the House on other occasions.
We have had some interesting speeches from both sides of the House. I agreed with much of the measured and sensitive speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) who outlined the difficulties that have arisen. I also agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The speeches from other hon. Members have ranged somewhat wider than the narrow confines of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Although those hon. Members raised genuine concerns and issues relevant to the wider context, I want to keep my remarks to the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
There is no doubt that the ecological consequences of the Gulf war have been extremely serious. As with any environmental incident, the impact and consequences of what has happened in the Gulf will be felt for many years to come. In some respects some of the damage caused may never be reversed—damage to the local environment, certain species of wildlife and the potential damage to the health of many individuals and, possibly, future generations.
Today there has been some discussion of the scale of that damage and the problems that we face. Given the different types of damage, its total scale is unknown, but it is clear that it is enormous. In some respects it is difficult to comprehend fully the enormity of the problems that we now face. Experts and laymen alike are extremely worried about what has already happened and what will happen in the next months and years.
Several different types of damage have been caused, but I first want to discuss the oil slicks and the difficulties that have arisen since the end of January. We were all shocked, although some people may not have been surprised, at the deliberate release of oil from the Sea island oil terminal and the subsequent releases from elsewhere. At the time it was suggested that that slick might be due to the military activities of the allied forces. The scale of that original oil slick made that unlikely, however, and shortly after we had the statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on 28 January, Saddam Hussein acknowledged that he had deliberately released oil into the Gulf.
The consequences of that slick have been severe and they have brought home to many people the horror and potential for environmental damage posed by such pollution. We have seen horrific sights in the past, for example, that caused by Exxon Valdez and other tankers. The consequences resulting from those slicks, however, have been far outweighed by the disaster that has hit the Gulf as a result of the deliberate release of oil in January.
We are aware from reports in yesterday's newspapers that the Exxon corporation has agreed to pay $900 million, about £500 million, to complete the clean-up in Alaska. That gives us some idea of the magnitude of the

task that we shall face in the Gulf. We should not forget that the problems relating to the Gulf oil spillage are far worse than those encountered in Alsaka, because of the nature of the Gulf. The sea in that region is shallow—110ft on average—and it lies in an enclosed area. Although the coast of Alaska was devastated, at least the sea cleaned the shore every few days. It takes 200 years for the Gulf waters to be renewed, which shows just how serious the problems are and will remain for a long time to come.
Many species and habitats have been threatened by the consequences of the oil slick. The most endangered habitats are the sea grass beds, which cover 46 per cent. of the seabed in the shallow coastal waters and are home to a rich variety of marine vertebrates and invertebrates. They are nursery grounds for commercial shrimps and fish, which provide an important livelihood for local people and much of their available food.
The oil slick has endangered species and hit the food and employment potential of people in the region, as well as the oil industry and other local industry. Some people would say that the only other viable industry in the region, apart from oil, is the fishing industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, coral reef habitats have also been affected. They, too, are extremely valuable—especially to the fishing industry—and vulnerable, not least because the Gulf is the northern extremity of their range, Therefore, they can be easily damaged but will not recover easily from that damage. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members mentioned bird and marine life and the difficulties experienced by some species of cormorant. The impact on some mammals has, thankfully, been relatively light—there was a report of one dolphin and two green turtles being lost, so casualties at this stage are not thought to be fantastically high.
On the other hand, bird mortalities are significant. They are estimated at between 10,000 and 20,000. In recent days, many migratory species have been found oiled. They are early spring migrants, and as the migration increases so does their prospect of even greater damage.
Clearly, the west possesses significant expertise in dealing with such problems. Unfortunately, there have been many instances of oil slicks causing damage and we have had to learn quickly and take good advice about what action to take. I am sorry to say that the most recent report that I have seen on the oil slick in the Gulf from a group of experts from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, made up of the World Conservation Unit, the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Wide Fund for Nature. The centre has been providing significant briefings in the past few weeks on current events in the Gulf. Its most recent report, issued on 12 March, says:
Very little co-ordinated clean up is being done.
Some 40 specialist companies are touting for clean-up work, but lack of available funds means that very little is actually happening".
When such a report is issued this week from people in the area, it is extremely worrying. I hope that the Minister will deal with that report and give us an update of events. More urgent action is needed because we have been discussing the problem for about six weeks and those in the Gulf still say that there is a lack of co-ordination and unified effort, so clearly, everything possible is not yet being done. May we have an update on the protection of the desalination plants, which are critical to the people in the region? There is scope for protecting the plants with


booms, but the dangers that would arise were oil to enter the water treatment plants would be severe and the impact would last for many years. It is important to mention what has been happening in the Gulf, not just in the past few weeks, but over recent years. It is right that we should be desperately concerned about the impact of the present oil slicks caused by the conflict in the Gulf over recent weeks. But we should not ignore the significant long-term damage caused in the region even before the Gulf war started. From reports that I have seen, it is clear that much damage was being done to the environment by many of those involved in the oil industry in that region.
Pollution in the Gulf did not start in January 1991, but has been going on for many years due to leakages from oil terminals, tankers being washed out in the Gulf and a generally casual attitude by many of those responsible for the oil industry. If there is one other lesson to be learnt from the oil slick, it may be that the whole of the oil industry must be more cautious, careful and strict in its general attitude.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Does the hon. Lady agree that not just the oil industry, but some of the Governments in the Gulf should take responsibility for what has happened over recent years?

Mrs. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is unfortunate that it has taken an incident of this sort and of such severity to bring home to people in the region, as well as outside it, the significant dangers of such a casual attitude towards pollution. Perhaps now, people in other districts will learn from this lesson before a crisis arises near them. If so, some good may come for other regions and lessons may be learnt.
Another problem that has been devastating the region, particularly Kuwait, in the past few weeks has been that of oil fires. That deliberate act by Saddam Hussein has created senseless damage. It was a vindictive act because it gave Saddam Hussein no military advantage during the conflict. The immediate impact on the people of Kuwait of setting fire to oil has been seen by all of us on our television screens, where there have been pictures of daylight scenes, with cars needing to have their headlights on full in the near darkness.
Estimates of the damage done by oil wells being deliberately set alight and the oil being ignited, and the amount of smoke generated, vary considerably. However, whatever estimates we make, none of the news is good. The estimates vary only in terms of just how desperate the position will be and how long it will remain a critical problem. From information that I have it seems that about 950 wells have been sabotaged, of which 550 are thought to be burning at present. The Kuwait Petroleum Company estimates that between 5 million and 6 million barrels per day of oil are burning at present. That estimate exceeds most of the worst case scenarios given before the incident took place. How long the fires will last is equally uncertain.
We have heard again about the problems of booby traps and the difficulties of getting equipment to the scene. In recent days we have been told that some fires were started and mines detonated in ways that were not predicted at earlier times in the crisis. In other words, those concerned are learning day by day about new developments and problems that must be taken on board.
It is estimated that those problems will be with Kuwait—and, I would add, with the whole of the world's environment—for between one and three years. Clearly, there is a global impact. Carbon dioxide emissions, I am told, could increase by 3 per cent. on a global basis in the first year and by 1 per cent. on the same basis in the second year.
It seems unlikely that the ozone layer will be affected, but significant climatic changes are taking place in the region. Black rain has been experienced in Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, and even in Turkey, over 600 miles away. We are learning of reductions in daytime temperatures and of increased rainfall acidity, which is now four times the normal rate. That makes the rates about as bad as those in the worst parts of Europe. We must not lose sight of the fact that certain parts of the world are living with these problems daily.
The combination of factors raises questions about the health of the people in the area, particularly in Kuwait, where families must fear for the long-term welfare of their children. That particularly applies to those susceptible to respiratory diseases, although it is known that some pollutants resulting from burning oil can be carcinogenic.
The third part of the motion deals with the health crisis that is being observed in Kuwait and Iraq. Conservative Members have mentioned that aspect during the debate, but have not gone into the detail of it. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment, when speaking in Nottingham last night, mentioned oil slicks and burning oil wells, but did not deal with the problems facing the innocent civilian populations of Kuwait and Iraq.
Damage has been caused to water supplies and the sewerage infrastructure of both countries. There are problems from the contamination of fisheries and the possible long-term impact on agriculture. There is also the danger of sulphur from acid rain entering the food chain. The situation is critical and continued fighting in parts of Iraq is making the problem worse. Innocent civilians in both countries are suffering and are likely to suffer for a long time to come.
Agencies, such as the joint mission of the WHO and UNICEF which visited the area in recent days, have confirmed fears about immediate and potentially severe risks resulting from problems including water-related epidemics. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Oxfam have been active in attempting to repair water treatment systems and provide emergency supplies of chlorine for disinfecting water supplies.
I hope that, internationally, the Government are doing more to co-operate with the efforts of the various agencies. That must be the way forward if we are to bring immediate relief to the people of Kuwait and the innocent civilians of Iraq.
The World Health Organisation/UNICEF report states that there are many problems, including—I hope that the Minister will address this one particularly—the fact that
The chemical plants which used to supply the main treatment elements, aluminium sulphate … and chlorine, have been destroyed by bombing".
That means that there is a basic incapacity to purify the water in the area, and that means that the problems will continue for some time. In many areas of Iraq, the water supply is extremely and seriously restricted. There is clearly an urgent need in both Kuwait and Iraq for water supply treatment chemicals, spare parts of the distribution network, and pumping stations and treatment facilities.


Will the Minister clarify the position on sanctions on those items? If we are saying that medical supplies should be allowed through because of the needs of innocent civilians, we must also address the question of the essential but otherwise harmless chemicals that are so clearly required to prevent epidemics spreading in the area.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has had discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that the Government will do their utmost and maximise everyone's efforts to ensure that all the agencies involved are given the fullest possible help when combating the real, serious and life-threatening dangers that now exist for the people of the Gulf.
It is difficult to see how anything constructive or beneficial could come out of the Gulf conflict, but certain ideas that have been mentioned could be utilised to minimise the danger of such problems occurring in the future. There have been discussions of late about whether the Geneva convention should be strengthened to provide greater protection for the environment. Article 55 of the convention deals with the protection of the natural environment. However, in view of all that has happened in recent weeks, I believe that it is right to look at that article again to see whether that protection needs updating. I hope that the Minister will convey that message to his right hon. and hon. Friends.
We now need to direct our efforts towards the environmental construction of the whole of the Gulf area. We must use the knowledge, monitoring procedures and expertise of the west to ensure that everything possible is done to reconstruct the Gulf area environmentally and to protect that part of the environment and the eco-system that is so far surviving all the devastation that has taken place there. Western countries, including our own, should be taking a lead. We need integrated environmental monitoring. We need a new approach to the problem of water management in the Gulf area, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The Tigris and the Euphrates are being over-abstracted. The potential for conflict will arise again if we do not have better management of such resources, which should be agreed internationally.
If we are to talk about planning the peace and about building more stability into the region, we must ensure that we tackle the problems of the area, such as water management, and seek some co-operation over the development of Gulf fisheries. We must also tackle the problems of irrigation, agriculture and of resources generally.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has given much of her parliamentary time to water-related issues. May I emphasise once again that this is a hydraulic civilisation and quote the phrase of Senor Rojo, which was quoted by John Pilger? Water-borne diseases could be the silent assassin.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. His point has already been made clear in reports from people in the Gulf. Water-borne diseases are already increasing. The incidence of water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea is four or five times what would normally be expected. There is a real danger of epidemics sweeping through parts of that area.
If we can do anything to prevent that, we should do it on humanitarian grounds through international agencies

such as the World Health Organisation and the Red Cross, which have a positive role to play. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he and the Government will support the efforts of those international agencies. If there is to be lasting peace in the area, we must take all those factors into consideration. If we are to protect the environment in that area in future, we must build on that peace or not only the people but the environment in that area will be threatened even further.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has done us a service by using his good fortune in winning the ballot to introduce a serious debate on the ecological consequences of the Gulf war. In the past few weeks we have witnessed an unprecedented sequence of environmental catastrophies as a consequence of the illegal occupation of Kuwait and the actions of Saddam Hussein. Let us be clear that the cause of the environmental disasters that we are concerned about have arisen from deliberate and culpable actions by Saddam Hussein to violate the environment. No one ever underestimated the risk of serious environmental terrorism by Saddam Hussein, and the fact that Saddam Hussein was capable of such environmental terrorism underlines how important it was to free Kuwait from his grasp.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the former Prime Minister, said:
if a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedom and justice may be restored, tyranny will triumph with all its brutality and the environment of human rights, which we seek to extend, will have received a fatal blow."—[Official Report, 13 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 446.]
On 21 January, the House debated and voted on the motion that hon. Members should express their
full support for British forces in the Gulf and their contribution to the implementation of United Nations resolutions by the multinational forces, as authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 678."—[Official Report, 21 January 1991; vol. 184, c. 24.]
The House divided and voted: 563 hon. Members supported the action of British forces in the Gulf, and 34 were against. All Back-Bench Labour Members who have spoken today were among the 34 who voted against British action in support of the United Nations in the Gulf. It may be appropriate to recall the observations of the Leader of the Opposition in that debate. He said:
there can be absolutely no doubt about the legitimacy of the military action against the Iraqi dictator.
Our forces are now engaged in fighting for the lawful purposes set out in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister quotes my right hon. Friend perfectly accurately, and we all stand by what my right hon. Friend said. However, I hope that the Minister will not be churlish in denigrating some of my hon. Friends' comments because some of them took a different attitude to the conduct of the war. Many of them made constructive and informed comments about the environment, about which they have every right to be concerned, regardless of their attitude to the war.

Mr. Baldry: I have no intention of being churlish. intend to put on the record that every Labour Member who has spoken today was among the 34 who voted


against the British action in the Gulf. It is right also to remind the House of the stand that the hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition took.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: In a moment.
The Leader of the Opposition said:
We consider the fulfilment of those resolutions to be critical to the future authority of the United Nations, and British forces—along with others in the coalition—are being used for the precise purpose of maintaining international law and sustaining the authority of the United Nations … it must be said that, by withdrawing from Kuwait, Saddam could have prevented any possibility of war. Even now, he can stop the war immediately by withdrawing from Kuwait and laying down his arms. Whatever else may be said or thought about the Iraqi dictator, some things are obvious: he wilfully refused to follow a course that guaranteed no war; he does not as yet want peace, and he will not as yet allow peace."—[Official Report, 21 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 31–33.]
I do not want there to be a shadow of a scintilla of a suggestion that anything that has happened in the Gulf has happened other than as a consequence of the actions of Saddam Hussein.
Today we have had some thoughtful and informed speeches. I hope that in my comments I can respond fully to the questions and concerns raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rightly castigated Saddam Hussein for what she described as unleashing this environmental catastrophy. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked for a co-ordinated and urgent international response. I can assure him that at all times our response has been prompt and positive and that it will continue to be so. We shall at all times seek to promote the best possible co-ordinated international response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rightly drew attention to the leading role that Britain has been taking in responding to requests from international agencies, such as the International Maritime Organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) sensibly observed that the two main challenges are the consequences of the oil slick and the consequences of the smoke plume over the Gulf region. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) underlined the scale of the challenge of the burning oil wells.
The first manifestation of Saddam Hussein's environmental terrorism was in the disastrous series of oil spills, of which the largest took place at Mina al-Ahmadi and was first identified on 24 January. There have been at least three major spills in the Gulf war.
The oil spills have been assessed at about 300,000 tonnes—somewhat less than the original estimate, but still the largest marine spills ever recorded and nearly 10 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill of 38,000 tonnes. By reference to the costs of clearing up the Exxon Valdez spill, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made a telling point about the possible long-term costs of the spills. The oil has been carried by wind and tide south along the coast of Saudi Arabia, with considerable quantities coming ashore along the 200 km coastline between Khafji and the island of Abu Ali. Although some oil has evaporated, considerable quantities remain afloat and were recently estimated at 50,000 tonnes. Easterly winds have helped to pen this oil in the large bay to the

west of Abu Ali, but changes in weather could bring it offshore with the potential to damage large areas to the south, including Bahrain and Qatar. I spoke this week to the co-ordination centre of the International Maritime Organisation and my latest information is that there is unlikely to be much movement of this oil in the next few days.
Smaller quantities of oil have been observed further offshore, probably from Mina al Bakr, and they are mostly patches of light oil or sheen with an estimated 2,000 tonnes remaining afloat. Meanwhile, damage in the war zone is generating several small continuing oil spills in the northern head of the Gulf, whose combined total has been estimated at 100 tonnes per day.
The impact on wildlife and ecological resources in the coastline affected has been extensive, affecting mangroves, seagrass beds and seabirds. On one 8 km stretch of coast it is reported that of 1,500 birds counted, some 80 per cent. were oiled. The shallow seas and seagrass beds of the western gulf are particularly important for biological productivity as nursery grounds for fish and shrimps. It is this area, which has been badly hit by the oil slick, that is particularly vulnerable to damage due to its shallow water and slow circulation. But the Gulf as a whole is particularly vulnerable ecologically due to such features as its semi-enclosed nature, in which the renewal of its waters from the open sea takes two and a half years.
We cannot know for certain how serious the long-term effects of the damage are likely to be until much more detailed assessments have been carried out, but it is already clear that major damage has been caused. Shortly after the slick occurred we were able to send to the Gulf states an assessment of the possible biological effects of the oil spill carried out by the Plymouth marine laboratory of the Natural Environment Research Council and this has proved very useful in monitoring the subsequent effects. I also pay tribute here to the work of the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge, whose regular assessments of the ecological resources of the Gulf states and how these disasters are likely to affect them have been of enormous value to all who are closely concerned with these issues.
The initial response action on oil pollution by the Gulf states has focused primarily on defending key industrial sites and desalination plants where blocking of water intakes would have serious consequences for drinking water, industry and many other activities. Some of this work has been carried out by the Saudi oil company, Aramco, while the protection of other areas, including ecological sites, has been tackled by the Saudi Meteorological and Environment Protection Agency. In addition to the oil-spill resources already available locally, Saudi Arabi was able to draw on the worldwide industry stockpile at Southampton, while a number of countries donated equipment such as defensive booms. However, that equipment has been more than fully deployed in protecting key sites such as desalination plants. Last week I saw some of the work that has been carried out to protect those plants using booms and other methods, and so far those measures appear to be effective. Meanwhile, the Saudi authorities have constructed barriers and trenches—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am glad to hear that the booms are proving effective. Can the Minister give us an update on the monitoring of water supplies? I understand that some


of the water treatment and desalination plants may not be equipped with facilities to monitor some of the dangers that could arise from oil pollution. Has he further information on that, or is he confident that the booms will prevent such problems?

Mr. Baldry: We have been responding positively to any request made to us by the Saudi Government, the Government of Bahrain or any other Government in the Gulf region, and we shall continue to do so. When I was in the region last weekend and speaking to Ministers and others, they seemed reasonably confident that the booms and protective measures for desalination plants would be effective. As I have made clear, much of the equipment has been deployed in protecting those key sites. If requests are made to us for monitoring equipment, we shall deal positively with them, as we have reacted to other requests that we have received from the area for equipment and expertise.
While the barriers and trenches have started to be constructed to deflect and contain oil—in a few locations recovery operations have begun—it is clear that there is an urgent need for large-scale recovery operations to begin if further damage is to be avoided in other ecologically sensitive areas. Although there are important practical problems to be overcome, such as hazards from mines and other war debris, it is clear that additional resources are and will be needed to deal effectively with a continuing threat, not least as oil is continuing to leak into the northern Gulf. This is where the international community must help.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a specific question about the condition of Kuwait's coral islands. We are aware of Dr. Downing's representation. We were glad to have his assessment, and we have passed on his advice on protective measures to authorities in the Gulf. We are happy also to pass on to the Kuwaiti Government Dr. Downing's proposals for assessment. It is clear that a great deal of work must be carried out in assessing the ecological damage to the area. We are keen to see how British science can help. We need to bear in mind, however, that in this, as in everything, the Gulf states must be in the lead in responding to the problems. We need to take into account their assessment of needs and priorities in offering United Kingdom science expertise. None the less, we shall be making it clear to all the Gulf states that are affected what we can offer. Our approach throughout has been to seek to be prompt, positive and practical.
The primary responsibility for action rests with the Gulf states that are directly affected, but we have made it clear throughout that we shall react promptly to any request for assistance that we receive. We shall react positively, whether it be requests for financial aid, equipment or expertise. After the first major spill was reported, we immediately organised a military airlift of oil pollution response equipment from Southampton. We sent out experts from the marine pollution control unit, which deals with oil spills in our own waters. We commissioned science assessments for Gulf states on the biological effects of slicks on the modelling of slick movements, which were carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council. We assisted an RSPCA team to train local volunteers in the cleaning of oiled birds in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar. Since that first phase, it has become clear that more needs to be done.
Last week, as I have told the House, I visited Bahrain in response to a request from the Government of Bahrain for assistance with pollution control equipment, and to see for myself the progress of counter-pollution operations. I presented to the Bahrain Government from the United Kingdom the first of a consignment of six oil recovery skimmers at a total cost of £300,000. Although the oil slick still has a potential to reach and damage Bahrain, the Government there made it clear to me that they would hope to use that equipment in the meantime further north to assist the Saudi counter-pollution operations. The Government of Bahrain are very appreciative of the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government. They recognise that there are environmental challenges that will require regional co-ordination and an international response.
It is increasingly clear that an effective response to those crises requires a global international response coordinated by the international agencies. The first task is to extend and intensify oil recovery and clean-up operations. For that purpose, Britain was the first nation to make a donation to the special fund established by the International Maritime Organisation to assist the Gulf states' counter-pollution operations and to act quickly where the need was greatest. The secretary general of the IMO is very grateful for the positive lead that the United Kingdom has taken in that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has written to colleagues in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to enlist and encourage their support for the IMO initiative.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury referred to a lack of co-ordination and funds in the clean-up operation. That is precisely why we are supporting the IMO. It is clearly the responsibility of lead international United Nations organisations to co-ordinate such activities and that is why we were the first nation to provide funds for the special fund set up specifically to assist that purpose. We want to ensure that the IMO has adequate resources for the clean-up operations that it must undertake. We hope that other countries will follow our lead.
It may be useful at this point if I briefly summarise for hon. Members what the international organisations are doing and how we are supporting their efforts. The International Maritime Organisation is the specialised agency of the United Nations concerned with shipping and oil pollution at sea. After the first spill, the IMO was asked by the Gulf states to co-ordinate offers of assistance from Governments of equipment and expertise. It has had a team of experts from member states co-ordinating information here in its London headquarters and in the Gulf and, in the light of their reports, it launched its special fund, to which I have already referred, on 5 March.
Another United Nations organisation, the United Nations Environmental Programme, which has the principal responsibility for co-ordinating the response to the consequences of the conflict, has subsequently given expert assistance to the regional forum of the Gulf states which met on 27 February in Bahrain—the regional organisation for protection of the marine environment. This week at the informal Environment Ministers' conference in Nairobi, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has called for UNEP to he recognised as the international body best able to co-ordinate the international effort on environmental emergencies. He called on UNEP to maintain standing


registers of environment science and international expertise for disaster response and for member states to assist with that by developing and keeping up to date their own registers.
The European Community has also contributed to the teams of experts advising the Gulf states, including a coastal ecologist from the United Kingdom's oil pollution research centre. In the Gulf, the Community has liaised between member states, and I believe that it can continue to play a valuable part in co-ordinating the scientific assistance that we might offer. One example would be to build on the work of the EC team already in the Gulf which has prepared a plan for detailed assessment of the ecological damage to coastal habitats caused by the oil slick.
I want now to consider the problems generated by the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells and the Smoke plume. Here again, we are dealing with an appalling act of economic and environmental sabotage. Several hundred oil well fires—possibly as many as 700—were started, in most cases long after they could have served any conceivable military purpose. That was a dreadful act by Saddam Hussein. Nor was that the work of ignorant men. Those who destroyed the well-heads seem to have known exactly what they were about. In their own perverse terms, they did a very effective job. While we are a very long way yet from certainty, there are indications that the damage, and the quantity of oil being burnt, may be well above even our worst earlier fears. A week ago, standing in Bahrain and looking south, I could see sunny blue skies. Looking north to Kuwait, I could see grey skies, overcast like the skies of an October afternoon.
Estimates of the rate of oil burn, how quickly this might be reduced, and the time that it will take to extinguish the fires must still be highly uncertain. However, we know that the Kuwaiti Petroleum Company believes that the current rate of burn is about 5 million to 6 million barrels a day, compared with our previous worst case assumption of 1·5 million barrels a day. If so, that would be serious news. The impact would be more severe and more widespread even than we had previously feared. On present information, it seems unlikely to be different in its nature. According to the best scientific evidence, there is no reason to think that stratospheric ozone concentrations will be significantly affected.
Throughout all this, we have relied on the best scientific advice available to us, whether that advice be from the Meteorological Office or the World Meteorological Organisation. There has been no suggestion of playing down any environmental consequences of what might have occurred in the Gulf. I make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not dismiss the risk of oil fires. He made available the advice that he had received on the environmental implications of such fires, which has since been followed by the Meterological Office study.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a direct question: was the paper that I went through at some length in my opening speech the paper that Dr. Keith Browing submitted?

Mr. Baldry: I had intended to deal with that point later, but I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was the paper that Dr. Keith Browning presented. I make it clear

that, throughout all this, Ministers and officials within the Department of the Environment want to rely on best science. Ministers and officials do not believe that they are possessors of all the knowledge on this wide area of environmental challenges. For that reason, we always search out the best scientific advice that can be made available to us by the best possible agencies. Sometimes, they will be our own agencies, such as the Meteorological Office, and on other occasions they will be international agencies, frequently United Nations agencies.
The problems caused by burning oil wells are unprecedented. The valuation of the possible effects remains difficult. However, notwithstanding the much-increased estimates of oil burn over the past few days, the best scientific advice is that the plume is thought to be unlikely to have reached the stratosphere in significant amounts, save occasionally as the result of thunderstorms. Most of the smoke will stay within a few kilometres of the atmosphere. When one is flying around the Gulf, one flies above the worst of the smoke plume. Our view remains that we are not facing a serious threat to the global climate.
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has just published a study on oil fires in Kuwait and provided a commentary for hon. Members. It emphasises that the effects are likely to be local. It says:
The reason that regional climatic impacts are not predicted is that much of the pollution falls out or is washed out of the atmosphere in a relatively short time. It is precisely this behaviour which will seriously affect the local environment. Models predict that the worst fallout will be within 2000 km—i.e. primarily over Kuwait, the Gulf, Iraq, Iran, eastern Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. But irregular fallout could occur as far away as Pakistan and northern India to the east and Greece, the Balkans and northeast Africa (e.g. Ethiopia) to the west. Fallout of soot is already widespread locally, and the large amounts of sulpher (and nitrogen) oxides cause rain to be highly acidic. 'Black rain' has been reported in Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, and given recent weather patterns, 'black' snow in the mountains of Iraq and Iran may have fallen. Smoke has reduced daytime temperatures through shading, but will also reduce nightime cooling through its blanketing effect.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a bit of a distortion of the English language to use the word "local" about effects felt as far away as Turkey, the Balkans, north Africa and Pakistan. Pakistan and the Balkans are not exactly, by any stretch of the English language, local to Kuwait.

Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point. There has been understandable worry about whether the impact of the smoke plume will have an effect on the global atmosphere and global temperatures. My point is reinforced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. The best advice that we have to date is that the smoke plume is unlikely to have a global impact, although no one denies that it will have an impact on the region.
Our view remains that we are not facing a serious threat to the global climate. We expect, however, acid rain and photochemical smog episodes, comparable with the worst encountered around major industrial areas, over possibly as much as 2,000 km downwind of the source; "black rain" and "black snow" over a similar distance from the source, leaving layers of soot; and, under the plume, daylight almost obliterated and daytime temperatures reduced by between 10 and 20 deg C possibly up to 100 km from the source. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member


for Linlithgow, let me say that those facts speak for themselves. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my point.
Immediate impacts of this sort clearly constitute unimaginably grim news for the people of the Gulf and neighbouring areas. There must, too, be real concerns about the health effects, particularly on the old, the very young and those with breathing difficulties, and about damage to crops. Serious long-lasting environmental damage, however, seems rather less likely. The familiar effects of acid rain on sensitive ecosystems in parts of Europe, for example, are the result of cumulative exposure over many years and of geology very different from the norm for the Gulf region. Our hope must be—at this early stage, it can be little more than hope—that the impact of the oil fires, horrifying though it will undoubtedly be, will be relatively short lived. Throughout, we shall always rely on the best scientific advice available to us and act promptly on it.
It was suggested last week in The Sunday Times that the plume from the Gulf oil fires could reach Europe. Satellite photographs clearly reveal the location of the smoke plume, which currently extends over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is unlikely that the plume could reach Europe, although, with extremely sensitive analytical equipment, some remnants of the fires may be detectable outside the Gulf region.
As to effects on health, as with everything else, our assessment of the potential health impacts of the smoke can be only tentative at present. Clearly the situation has much in common with the notorious London smogs of the 1950s—heavy concentrations of sulphur dioxide and carbon particles—but there are important differences, too. There will be less tar and ash than in the London smogs and the climate is completely different. We should not therefore assume too readily that the toll on health will be comparable.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister monitoring the hydrogen sulphide?

Mr. Baldry: It may be for the convenience of the House if, when I draw near the end of my speech, I turn to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that, as far as possible, I have answered all his questions. Almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has asked me will be dealt with, and it may be more convenient for the House if I tell him what we are going to do.
Traces of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also likely to be present, on the carbon particles. Some of them have carcinogenic properties. Again, however, amounts are likely to be less than in London's old coal-related smogs, and I am advised that any increased risk of cancer should be low. Dioxins are less likely to be involved, as crude oil does not normally contain halogens in any quantity. This, however, still needs to be confirmed on the ground.
Clearly, in periods of heavy smoke pollution, the best thing for people to do is to stay indoors as much as possible. That is particularly important for babies, young children and people with respiratory disorders. Anyone exposed to a serious smoke episode will need careful watching.
There is no obvious cure for the pollution arising from the fires. It follows that the absolute priority must be to tackle the fires. Hon. Members rightly drew attention to

the huge and unprecedented scale of the problem, which is seriously complicated by the destruction of so much of the Kuwaiti infrastructure, by the difficulty of getting water to the well-heads, and by the presence of mines and booby-traps. Western Governments are not unaware of these problems. The question is how we may be best able to help.
We must recognise that the Kuwaiti Petroleum Company already has under contract the world's leading international oil well fire-fighting companies, including that of Red Adair. There is no question of the fire-fighting efforts being hampered by failure to bring the best available expertise to bear on the problem and the international community—including the United Kingdom—is determined to bring that expertise to bear. A formidable amount of equipment will no doubt be required. However, the company is still in the process of assessing just what is needed. That is not merely a matter of extinguishing the fires. It is also crucial that the well-head must be adequately controlled to prevent oil from spreading on the ground. When that assessment is complete, it will be easier to see what sorts of help may be most appropriate. Meanwhile, the Offshore Supplies Office of the Department of Energy is already trying hard to ensure that Britain makes the best contribution that it can. The United Kingdom office of Bechtel is expected to have a key role in the first phase of managing the damage assessment, repair and reconstruction.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will visit the Gulf next month further to assess the environmental effects of the war and the way in which they are being dealt with. He has made it clear that we are anxious to make available to the Gulf states bilaterally or through international organisations—or both—any and all United Kingdom scientific expertise that would be genuinely helpful to them in assessing the current and potential impact of the fires and in devising follow-up action.
I would not, however, claim for a moment either that Britain has a monopoly of wisdom in this area or that the Gulf states do not have highly qualified experts of their own. We shall be anxious rather to identify any particular areas of expertise that the Gulf Goverments feel that they lack, or in which their own experts are overwhelmed by the amount of work to be done.
The Secretary of State, however, announced yesterday three specific offers of help. We will send the Gulf states very shortly the best assessment that we can compile, from United Kingdom knowledge and expertise, of the nature and extent of the plumes, their likely evolution and their possible impact on the environment and on human health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham urged, we shall supply the Gulf states on a regular basis with interpreted satellite data. We shall arrange for a Meteorological Office research aircraft to study the composition and behaviour of the smoke plumes. Information from these flights will be made available to states in the region to help them to evaluate the likely impact of the smoke. If we are asked for any further monitoring or research assistance that we feel we have the expertise to give, I have no doubt that we shall try to respond positively.
In all this we shall rely in particular, although not exclusively, on the outstanding expertise of the Met Office. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow criticised the brief assessment of the situation produced by that


office, which was placed in the Library on 17 January. Obviously, it was a preliminary report undertaken at a stage when little firm information was to hand. It was, none the less, a useful paper, particularly because it was so concise.
I make it clear to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the Met Office report—indeed every Met Office report—is its report. There is no suggestion of its being "doctored" in Whitehall. That report, in common with all reports produced by that office, reflects the genuine concerns and uncertainties of Dr. Keith Browning and his colleagues. They consulted widely among the United Kingdom scientific community before they wrote their report. That report may contain some uncertainties, but they reflect the best estimates and the best scientific appraisals of the best scientific brains available to give advice at that time.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury asked about our attitude towards helping the suffering people in Kuwait and Iraq. There is now a United Nations mission in Iraq to assess humanitarian needs. We fully support humanitarian assistance to Iraq channelled through the International Committee of the Red Cross—CRC—provided it is given in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions.
Britain has committed $1 million to UNDRO—the United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator—for the Gulf region and £2·5 million to the ICRC appeal for the Gulf. In addition, European Community assistance—of course we contribute to that budget—to the Red Cross Gulf appeal for specific sanitation and water purification work, much of it in Iraq, amounts to 3 million ecu. A large proportion of those funds will, of course, go to Iraq.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West mentioned a current mission to Iraq by representatives of Oxfam and Save the Children Fund. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will give careful consideration to any suggestions that they may make to her in due course.
As for Palestinians in Kuwait, we have repeatedly made it clear to the Kuwaiti Government, at a senior level, that alleged collaborators should be dealt with under the rule of law. The Prime Minister repeated that message a short time ago when he met the Crown Prince of Kuwait.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister talked about humanitarian aid and the need for it to get through as required. Can he specifically clarify whether that humanitarian aid will cover the chemicals required for water purification, such as chlorine and aluminium sulphate, which were produced by the plants that have been bombed? The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the need to do something about the problems in the region. Can he confirm that such items will not be blocked by any sanctions?

Mr. Baldry: I have no doubt that the international community will wish to do everything possible to bring the necessary humanitarian aid to Iraq and the rest of the region. However, the extent of such humanitarian aid needs to be assessed.
Several hon. Members, including the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), made the telling point that we know little about what has taken place in some parts of Iraq because it has been difficult for people

to go there. I assure the hon. Member for Dewsbury that the United Nations and the international community will not want to cavil over which line various matters fall. Once an assessment is made, the United Nations relief organisations and others will want to see how best to respond to those needs. Clearly, it is in the interests of the whole of the international community that humanitarian needs be met as speedily as possible and by the best means.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned birds. We welcome the work of the International Council for Bird Preservation, which has sent two experts for a short visit to the Gulf in the past 10 days to assess the effects of the oil spill on bird life. The region is an important staging post for spring migration and is home to some endangered species, such as the socotra cormorant. Further study in the region will be beneficial. Reports by ICBP experts give a mixed picture. They say that some offshore islands have escaped the oil and, in some areas, comparatively few badly oiled birds have escaped. In one case, in a flock of 3,000 birds, about 1,000 were estimated to be oiled to some degree, while about 250 were heavily oiled.
In the ICBP's view, the slow clean-up and lack of local monitoring information available strongly support the case for a study of species, movement, feeding patterns and oil damage. The ICBP is the recognised international federation of bird preservation groups and, in the United Kingdom, is strongly supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is funded by private and other donations and sponsorship. Details of its new proposal were faxed to my Department only yesterday, so we must consider its request for support. As with every other request that we have received, we shall consider it carefully.
I hope that I have responded comprehensively to the issues that have been raised. The bull point of my remarks is that, in all of these matters, we must rely on the best scientific information. Environmental science and the international community face an unprecedented challenge in responding to those problems and we must act quickly if we are to prevent an enduring legacy of ecological ruin in the areas most affected. One way that we can assist is by targeting United Kingdom science on those problems and offering our expertise to the Gulf states.
As I said, science can help directly in monitoring the scale of the damage from smoke plumes, oil slicks and hazardous material, in using computer models to predict how it will spread and in advising on its likely consequences for human health, agriculture and all aspects of the environment. We need science to advise on the best way of disposing of the vast quantities of war debris, much of which will be contaminated with hazardous chemicals. We also need to be ready to assist the Gulf states to develop further their own environmental protection agencies.
On my visit to Bahrain last weekend I discussed with the Government of Bahrain, at their request, the possible assistance we can offer in building up environmental protection machinery and expertise and we are preparing to send out a United Kingdom team to assist in this field.
All hon. Members will agree that the terrible environmental problems generated in the Gulf and caused by the actions of Saddam Hussein remain considerable and can be tackled only by a collective international effort to assist the Gulf states. The United Kingdom has led the way by responding promptly and positively to calls for assistance, and we shall continue to consider how we can


contribute to the long-term recovery of that fragile but highly distinctive environment which is important to so many millions of people. We have been prompt and positive in our actions, and shall continue to tackle the ecological challenges in the Gulf region.

Mr. Dalyell: Although the proposer has a right of reply, in the knowledge that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) has been waiting, in the belief that those who are drawn second in the ballot should have an opportunity to introduce their motion, and in the hope that the Seitz Crutzen proposals will be looked at, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Materials Recycling

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to recycling of materials which reduces waste and conserves energy and raw materials; notes the important steps which this Government is taking towards reaching its target of recycling 50 per cent. of all reusable household waste by the year 2000 and that the £40 million being made available over the next three years will help boost recycling projects recognises the need for the Government to encourage research into greater use of recycling and for initiatives to encourage industry, commerce and the general public in the use of recycling; further recognises that recycling helps to reduce litter and generally improve the environment and that the Tidy Britain Group's National Spring Clean campaign will he a helpful contribution to public participation; and believes that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will encourage recycling by introducing recycling credits and by forcing local authorities to publish recycling plans.
May I first thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his courtesy in giving me quarter of an hour for my motion. I congratulate him on the manner in which he moved his motion and on his diligent research to provide the facts that he presented to the House. Regardless of whether we agree with every point he makes, we can always be sure that whatever motion he proposes, it will have been thoroughly research, will be informative to the House and will justify the case that he puts with great expertise.
My motion is designed to bring to the attention of the House the importance of the recycling of materials. In the United Kingdom today we are aware of the importance to the environment of many different aspects of what have, in the past, been accepted as processes that are merely part of our daily lives, with no real impact on us. We have become more and more conscious of the need to deal properly with the waste that we produce, both in our homes and in industry. We have also become aware of how it affects our daily lives if we do not treat it properly. Some of the tips and other means of disposal show us how dangerous waste disposal can be to our health.
Recycling has distinct advantages because it not only protects the raw material resources, but gives an important economic boost to industry allowing it to reduce the price of products. It also encourages all of us to keep our environment in a better state.
Energy—about which we talked in the previous debate, particularly oil—is something we greatly need to conserve and of which we should reduce our intake. Through the use of resources and through recycling, particularly of aluminium, we can produce great savings in energy. We can save on the cost of transporting new raw materials if we can reuse materials, particularly in their own localities. In so doing, we also save disposal costs. If we can properly dispose of and recycle some of those materials we reduce the risk of pollution as we prevent them from being destroyed or being released into the atmosphere and soil. We also reduce the demand for landfill space. In constituencies such as mine there is no shortage of holes in which to put waste, though the decision in which holes to put the waste is not always popular.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that protection is required for our rivers? As a patron of the Thames clean-up campaign, I assure my hon. Friend that all too often we find that items that could be recycled


are dumped in the Thames, creating a messy and dangerous environment that is unpleasant for humans, swans, fish and associated life in and around our rivers.

Mr. Stevens: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is in my constituency a small river which, although it could not compete with the Thames, is the recipient of rubbish, even supermarket trolleys, creating an unsightly and dangerous area. I recall that when, 30 years ago, I worked in London, the state of the Thames was decidedly worse. There is much less floating debris now.
It would be wrong to imply that a great deal of British industry does not recycle waste. Indeed, in many ways our record is good. The latest figures that I have, though they are somewhat out of date, show that in 1986, British industry recovered 27 million tonnes of reusable material worth over £2 billion, including exports worth £700 million. With ferrous metals, copper and lead there has traditionally been much recycling and some of the amounts processed—82 per cent. of ferrous metals and 74 per cent. of copper—are high.
That has been done as a matter of economic necessity. In other areas, where the same economic necessity does not exist, the percentages are lower. In some cases reclamation is not economical. There is a temptation to think that all household and industrial waste can be recycled at reasonable cost. That is not so.
The Government are to be congratulated on financing research into ways of recycling materials, in particular materials that are difficult to get rid of without the possibility of toxins and other by-products being created. The Government devoted £10 million in 1990–91 into researching the recycling of waste products.
Recycling was not considered an important aspect of life 10 or 15 years ago. Mostly it was left to the rag and bone man, with newspapers and other waste paper being given to the boy scouts and others as a semi-charitable enterprise. We now recognise that recycling has an important part to play in the use and conservation of materials and for the good of the environment.
Much needs to be done to make the public aware of the importance of recycling. Bottle banks are common and "recycling cities" such as Sheffield have done much, with the help of the Department of the Environment. It is important to create such initiatives and people should be given the opportunity to separate and dispose of various waste materials that can be recycled.
There is still reluctance among the public which needs to be addressed. Trying to locate bottle banks is not always the easiest thing in the world, desirable as they are. It seems all right for them to be located in the car park of a large supermarket, but that can mean people travelling quite large distances. If one suggests that the bottle banks should be located in more residential areas, one finds that there is not the same welcome for or acceptance of those receptacles. That is also true of metal disposal—

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the bottle bank is too far away, the owner of the bottles may spend more money in petrol and emit greater pollution into the atmosphere when getting to the bottle bank than the amount that is saved by preserving the glass?

Mr. Stevens: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is also true of collecting waste paper and newspapers for various charities. By the time people have got all the paper together, with all the money that that may entail, they could have given a bigger donation to the organisation concerned than the amount that the organisation can get from the waste paper.
The difficulty is to find the best form of recycling provision. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities will consider responsibility for organising recycling plans and for deciding on the methods of waste disposal in their area. However, if the public do not have ready access to the recycling receptacles, we will not move on from the situation with which we have all grown too familiar. I refer to our hedgerows and any piece of ground being littered with various things, which are costly to get rid of. Clearing waste from such areas is far more expensive than picking up refuse from one site. In many cities and towns, however, the disposal sites, such as the local tips, are not readily accessible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) pointed out, people have to travel considerable distances and there is therefore the temptation not to recycle, but to put the rubbish in a dustbin or to get rid of it in some other way.
As I have said, we need to carry out research into the best ways of disposing of waste and of separating one type of waste from another. We must also consider the best and most economic way of recycling our waste.
Plastics have proved particularly difficult to get rid of. We are now talking about biodegradable plastics which, if they can be developed to the right extent, will mean that we do not have to face the worry of something that will not break down for many years. The incineration of plastics also causes great difficulties, unless it can be carried out at high temperatures. Plastic that is not destructible causes a general mess.
Litter is another important issue. It is important that we solve the problems caused by packaging. We are better off not producing the waste and the litter in the first place than having to recycle it. We need to design our products so that unnecessary waste does not automatically accompany them. That would mean that we could start to reduce not only the initial product cost, but the cost of reclamation and disposal. Although a lot of work has been carried out on packaging, even today it is still possible to buy many things that come with plastic or even small amounts of metal packaging which could be reduced. The packaging could be replaced with a biodegradable material or with paper that could be reused.
We have moved a long way in our acceptance of and approach to the importance of recycling and I congratulate the Government on the initiatives they have taken. As the motion states, there is still a need
to encourage research into greater use of recycling and for initiatives to encourage industry, commerce and the general public in the use of recycling".
We must do all that we can to encourage people to be aware of the need for recycling.
The Tidy Britain Group has a part to play, and I hope that its national spring clean campaign will make the public aware of the importance of getting rid of litter and of the importance of recycling, encourage public participation in improving our environment and make products cheaper through encouraging recycling.

It being half past Two o'clock. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

To be considered on Friday 22 March.

DOMESTIC LETTINGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Bill not printed. Second Reading what day? No day named.

PRESCRIPTION CHARGES (EXEMPT MEDICAL CONDITIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 May.

OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS (GENERAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

DEAF PERSONS (ACCESS TO FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard no objection.

Mr. W. Benyon: I objected.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 April.

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[8 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 22 March.

COURTS (RESEARCH) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 18th March, the Motions in the name of Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to changes in the membership of Select Committees, may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and half hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, Mr. Speaker shall then put successively the Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motions which he may have selected, and, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Motion relating to Environment shall be regarded as a single Motion.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Dental Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for coming to the House for this brief debate on dental services. I am well aware that the Department of Health is one of the most demanding Departments, and its workload is even greater at present because of the reforms that are taking place in hospital services
Going to the dentist these days, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I hope you have not experienced recently, seems to be so expensive that many people must think that the fees that we pay cover all dental costs and that the taxpayer's contribution must be limited. The maximum charge for a course is now £200, and that must appear to be substantial in relation to the costs of the service. However, the truth is about a mile away.
In 1989, payments made to dentists in England were recorded in table 5.1 of the practitioner committee service publication as being about £927 million, of which the patient paid £361 million, and public funds contributed £565 million. The reason for that huge gap is simply that 41 per cent. of the population are wholly exempt from charges, and the remaining 59 per cent. pay three quarters of fees paid to dentists for care and treatment. To those who would understandably complain about the level of dental charges we must point out that the money they pay covers a lot less than half of that excellent service.
In other aspects of social services we are always conscious of the poor take-up of benefits, but, on the basis of simple statistics and of my own observations of dental clinics, dental staff go out of their way to ensure that those entitled to exemption actually receive it. A considerable part of dental work relates to the provision of synthetic dentures. Since being appointed adviser to the Association of Denture Prosthesis—that interest is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests—I have acquired a multitude of facts, figures and arguments to support a view that I have held for a long time, which is that the patients, the service and the taxpayer could benefit if the public were able to go directly to fully trained and qualified denturists for the fitting and manufacture of dentures. As a patient, I have always felt that there is something rather strange in a dentist examining the mouth, taking impressions, and trying and adjusting models constructed by dental technicians, when the technicians are often working in a laboratory far removed from the surgery, knowing little or nothing about the patient for whom the dentures are intended. A more meaningful relationship could be established between the patient and the technician if there were direct contact and if the technician could be readily available to patients for any adjustments or special needs. There could be considerable savings to the patient and the taxpayer if the work were undertaken directly and if there were at least an element of competition in service and costs.
After making contact with the association, I was heartened to find that this view was not just an unusual idea, but that a host of nations, aware of high medical and dental standards, had taken steps in law to ensure that dentures could be supplied to patients without the involvement of a dentist. Holland, New Zealand, Spain,

Portugal, Canada, Finland and Australia have that practice and a host of states in the United States have taken similar steps. It appears to work well and effectively in the patients' interests. My first request to the Minister is that she makes inquiries in those countries to find out whether the arrangement is working well.
My next request is that the Minister makes specific inquiries to establish whether it is true that considerable savings can accrue to the public purse by adopting direct access to dental technicians. There is considerable evidence available from the United Kingdom, because I understand that, sadly, a considerable amount of direct work is being done, although it would appear to be conducted illegally. I have no idea of the savings that could accrue, but, according to careful estimates by the association, on the assumption that 60 per cent. of national health service dentures are supplied direct, the savings to the state could be more than £11 million. That is a great deal of money which could be used in other areas of medical or dental work. The figures are based on fittings supplied to dentists in the 1988–89 financial year.
Would such a change in practice shock the public? Strange to say, it appears that the public is way ahead of us. A MORI poll taken in November last year showed that no fewer than 60 per cent. of denture wearers would prefer to obtain them direct from a denturist. There appears to be support in, of all places, the so-called European Parliament. I would not wish to place any undue emphasis on that, but, as its public health committee has unanimously recommended that denturists should be introduced in every member state, the Minister might just wake up some morning to find that Jacques Delors has been to work and that a reform has been imposed on Britain by majority vote. Therefore, it would be wise to get down to work now, so that this can be properly planned and considered.
Would it cost a fortune to pay for the training and education of denturists? I doubt whether there is a real problem, because the training would be on a fee-paying basis. Again the Minister may inquire.
Would we be creating an entirely new principle in medicine? I cannot see how that would be the case. For the fitting of artificial limbs, eyes and hearing aids, there is no question of the profession having a monopoly. The one obvious worry that the public may have is whether when, having dentures fitted, there may be a medical problem. Might a qualified denturist not see or identify serious medical problems that a fully trained dentist could identify? The issue worries me, but countries that have studied this carefully do not appear to come to that conclusion. The general view appears to be that if a denturist is trained to identify conditions of the mouth, his professional duty will be to refer the patient to another professional for a proper diagnosis. Again, I hope that the Minister will consider that matter. What has happened in other countries? Have serious problems arisen? Or can the problem be overcome with proper training on the identification of mouth and gum problems?
The time has come for proper and serious inquiries to be made. We are not talking about a minor problem, affecting a small minority. Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, more than 1 million synthetic dentures are supplied yearly to our population of more than 50 million. If we could provide savings for patients and for the public purse, and ensure a more direct relationship


between the patient and the person supplying and manufacturing dentures, we could initiate real and meaningful inquiries about future legislative reform.
I thank the Minister for coming here on a Friday afternoon after she has had such a busy week. I hope that she can give me some assurances.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on raising this subject on behalf of denturists who, through the Association of Denture Prosthesis, have for some time been seeking a change in legislation to enable them to provide dentures directly to the public.
My hon. Friend said that the denturists' campaign has been such that in a few countries legislation has been amended to allow individuals with limited, but clearly defined, clinical training to undertake certain types of prosthetic treatment. The scope of the treatment that they can provide varies widely from one country to another.
It is perhaps more relevant, although perhaps somewhat invidious of my hon. Friend, to compare the United Kingdom position with that of other countries in the European Community. My hon. Friend will know that the Department has already sought to obtain information about practices in other member states. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that our inquiries about those countries in which denturists are permitted to practice will be extended to determine how those arrangements are working.
My hon. Friend raised a number of important points about which further information will help to inform our policy. We need to ask ourselves whether any relaxation in the Dentists Act 1984 to allow denturists to deal directly with patients would improve the quality of service to the public. Patients should quite rightly be able to expect to obtain dentures which are comfortable and functional. They should also be able to obtain dentures at reasonable cost under the NHS.
My hon. Friend referred to the increase to £200 of the maximum charge for dental treatment which I announced to the House earlier this week. He is quite right to say that some 41 per cent. of the population pay no charges at all. We estimate that very few people will be affected by the increase in the maximum charge. For those adults who pay charges, the average amount paid for a course of treatment in 1989–90 was £25. That is nowhere near the present maximum or the new maximum from 1 April. We estimate that under 1 per cent. of all courses of treatment will be affected by this change.
My hon. Friend, who rightly seeks savings for the health service where they are possible, argued that considerable savings could accrue to the public purse if denturists were allowed to provide dentures directly to patients, thus cutting out the dentist middleman.
My hon. Friend will be fully aware that the Association of Denture Prosthesis made a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading in 1985 on the ground that dentists were abusing their monopoly through high prices and profits from the supply of private dentures. Following his investigation of the complaint, the Director General of Fair Trading concluded that the NHS provided a

competitive alternative to private treatment, and saw little justification for the introduction of denturism on economic grounds.
I should explain how fees to dentists are calculated. Fees paid to dentists for NHS treatment, including those for the provision and fitting of dentures where laboratory work is involved, are set by the dental rates study group. This is a non-departmental public body comprising representatives of the health departments and the dental profession under an independent chairman.
The laboratory components of these fees are based on an average cost calculated separately for each item using a representative sample of current trade catalogues. There are no arrangements to ensure that dental laboratories actually receive the calculated average amount. The relationship between dentists and the laboratories whose services they employ is one of free-market economics.
The fees that dentists receive include an allowance sufficient to ensure that they can use the services of reputable laboratories and so purchase services of the required quality. Clearly, where expenses are reimbursed on an average basis through the fee scale, all dentists have a powerful incentive to shop around laboratories for the best price while, of course, maintaining professional and quality standards. This incentive to search out value for money helps the Government to contain the costs of the general dental service. Dentists must decide for themselves which laboratories they use and the Government would certainly not wish to interfere in what is an entirely private transaction between dentists and dental laboratories, but dentists must not lose sight of the fact that under their terms of service with the NHS they are made personally responsible for ensuring products supplied by the laboratory and fitted in their patients' mouths are of a quality fit for the purpose for which they are used.
Dental service committees of family health services authorities may investigate complaints about alleged use of substandard materials in the same way as any other complaint that a dentist has not provided the proper standard of care.
Fees set for any particular item of treatment partly reflect the laboratory and material costs involved in that particular item of treatment, but also serve as a means of helping to deliver the target average net income, as recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body, and practice expenses due to the average dentist.
At a time when the number of dentures provided is declining—in 1988–89, for example, 461,950 complete dentures were provided in England and Wales, whereas only a year later only 369,370 were provided, and dentists' work load is shifting more towards preventive treatment and continuing care—it does not follow that a further reduction in denture work would necessarily lead to a proportionate reduction in their practice expenses or justify under the present arrangements a significant reduction in their net income target. Some of their standing costs might simply have to be redistributed to other fees.
It is in that context that the effect on dental remuneration as a whole of any reduction in denture work undertaken by dentists would need to be considered. It is not at all certain that the Doctors' and Dentists Remuneration Review Body would reduce the target average net income were dentists not to do this work. In those circumstances, as my hon. Friend will readily


appreciate, there would be no reduction of costs; on the contrary, any payments to denturists for providing dentures would be an additional cost. Essentially the changes that my hon. Friend is advocating would have substantial implications for the way in which dental services would be financed.
I mentioned that patients have a right to expect that their dentures should be functional and comfortable, and my hon. Friend has suggested that an opinion poll last year indicated that many denture wearers would prefer to obtain them direct from a denturist. Until now there has been little quantifiable evidence to enable us to measure patient satisfaction. We saw, in 1987, a report from the National Consumer Council which showed that patients did not generally complain about the cost of dentures, but, rather, they were more likely to be dissatisfied over the quality and final fit. At the same time Age Concern, which my hon. Friend will know is particularly interested in problems of the elderly, was unequivocal that the responsibility for fitting dentures should remain with dentists and should not be passed to dental technicians.
In that same year, the then president of the General Dental Council conceded that the council continued to receive
a steady flow of complaints from patients about unsatisfactory dentures".
We have recently received the final draft of a study carried out by the dental practice board into the provision of complete dentures in the general dental services. Patient satisfaction was the major area of interest in the study and three different aspects were addressed. These were the level of satisfaction with the course of treatment, whether the new dentures met the patient's expectations and whether the dentures were being used and found satisfactory for the purposes for which they had been provided. The study suggests areas where improvements are necessary. In the meantime, the Department is already preparing a training package that is directed at improving the dentist-dental technician interface. We hope that that in turn will lead to an improved service for the patient. Clearly it is the relative contribution of the dentist and the technician that is of great importance in achieving a quality service for the patient.
A further important argument concerns the availability of the service. Dental auxiliaries are, in general, of great use where demand for dental treatment is high and manpower is insufficient to meet the needs. The General Dental Council may, by statutory instrument, make regulations for the establishment of classes of dental auxiliaries who may undertake dental work.
The number of dentists has been increasing substantially. In 1979, there were 13,993 dentists providing general dental services. However, that figure had risen substantially by 1990 to 18,011. Some have tried quite irresponsibly to argue that because of the new dental contract introduced on 1 October, dentists might withdraw from the NHS. I hope that my hon. Friend and others concerned about the matter will be aware that that is not the case. Soon after the new dental contract was introduced, the British Dental Association conducted a survey of dentists which showed that 96 per cent. were still treating child patients, 90 per cent. were still treating adult patients and 85 per cent. were also accepting new adult patients for continuing care. Altogether more than 12

million patients have signed on under the new arrangements which, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, place the emphasis on prevention and continuing care instead of on the old drill-and-fill ethos.
I have mentioned the supply of dentists; we should also not lose sight of the possible demand for treatment— particularly dentures—in the future. My hon. Friend will be aware of the survey of adult dental health carried out in 1988 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the results of which were published on 12 February 1991. This clearly illustrates a continuing trend of improving dental health.
One of the most encouraging features of the report is the confirmation that more and more people can look forward to keeping their natural teeth. The 1988 survey showed that only 21 per cent. of the adult population was edentulous compared with 30 per cent. in 1978. It is confidently predicted that the number of complete denture wearers will continue to fall until by the year 2028 only 6 per cent. of the population will be wearing complete dentures. There is hope for us all! Those will be the more elderly of the population whose treatment is likely to require considerable skill and experience, perhaps requiring treatment by restorative consultants in hospitals.
Against that background we must consider very carefully before deciding that there should be any diminution of the work undertaken by dentists. I should add that the Department is undertaking a survey of dental manpower later this year and we shall have a clearer picture of future manpower needs when it is completed.
However, the Dentists Act 1984 specifically prohibits dental auxiliaries of any class from fitting, inserting or fixing dentures or artificial teeth for a good reason. It protects the public by restricting dental practice to those who are properly trained and qualified. The provision of dentures cannot be considered in isolation from the total oral and general health care of patients. The insertion of a denture significantly changes the oral environment and this may have harmful effects on any remaining teeth, the gums and oral mucous membranes or the whole of the masticatory apparatus.
In the Department of Health, we are convinced that a patient's oral health will be better served if, when dentures are required, that function is carried out by a person who is trained to prescribe and fit dentures; can recognise pathological conditions which may be caused or exacerbated by dentures; and can at the same time advise the patient—particularly where partial dentures are being fitted—of any other dental treatment which should be carried out.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that about 2,000 new cases of oral cancer are reported each year, most in the 50 to 70 age group. It is vital that early diagnosis is made and any precancerous conditions recognised, and dental surgeons are uniquely placed and qualified to undertake that work. There are many other conditions in the mouth that are markers of systemic disease, such as diabetes, anaemias and malabsorption syndrome, as well as numerous mucosal conditions which require treatment before dentures are constructed—indeed it is estimated that approximately half of all persons with dentures show evidence of some form of oral pathological condition.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that while we welcome the contributions made by dental technicians, we believe


that they should work with dental practitioners as part of a team to ensure that patients receive a quality service that protects their oral health and general well-being.
I thank my hon. Friend for this debate, which has provided me with the opportunity to give an overview of the way that we see dental technicians and denturists working in the provision of dentures, ensuring that we all have the services that we require. My hon. Friend has identified a number of areas that will benefit from Further

examination. I have given an undertaking to secure further information. I appreciate his contribution in ensuring that, as we carry forward our policies of evaluating the way in which our dental surgeries are provided, the role and contribution of denturists is thoroughly and properly examined. We want the benefit of their contribution as well as that of other practitioners in this sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock.